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

[brg444]

gotta admit these USGmoles do not waste a minute to come up with some new BS around each corner...

TBF, Bitlicense, bitcoinXT, and now Blockchain Alliance.. wow


http://trilema.com/2012/the-politics-of-bitcoin/#selection-101.0-108.0

The idiots on Reddit buying this FUD too  

"Oh n0es! Bitcoin censorship-resistance is done because a few corporate statist sockpuppets have figured out you can track the blockchain!"

I've been saying for a while that after their attempt to bloat Bitcoin into Paypal 2.0 inevitably fails the "fungibility" attacks are their next battling grounds.

[brg444]

The only thing that interests me now about the blocksize debate is how the network forks and what form that takes. Major companies in the space like Coinbase and Bitpay are now publicly taking a stand against the Core developer position which is extraordinary on the face of it. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out and whether you and your colleagues who actively promote the limitation of bitcoin with such gusto are happy with the outcome.

Will you still use bitcoin if an industry supported reference client (with a scaling blocksize inbuilt) rapidly garners support and sidelines Core and it's developers?

By my own very speculative estimates the "industry" you speak of controls less than 1% of the money supply, a few independent full nodes and 0% of the hashing power.

Thus, it remains to be seen whether or not this governance coup would ever garner support, much less rapidly.

It is an unfortunate situation where some of you have been brainwashed into believing that Bitcoin cannot make it without the "industry" of what's essentially banking parasites and their VC backers.

Typical North American egocentric herd behaviour.  

[muyuu]

It's expected that VC money and the State would work on de-anonymising unsuspecting users. I have more issue with the noisy pseudo-bitcoiners cheering the efforts to co-opt the protocol and make it harder for users to stay anonymous, and their funds fungible and censorship-free.

[hdbuck]

they'll all fail and go bankrupt.

[hdbuck]

nice play peter..



https://archive.is/bbzBV

alas the technical and serious discussion regarding bitcoin's development will go fully underground once the dev mailing list fades into irrelevance.

and you wacko wont be able to phagocytize its development anymore.



also, im asking the mods here to permaban this mofo.

[muyuu]

That's the thing with overly lenient moderation. Charlatans and pseudoscientists like Peter R. Rizun who doctor the fuck out of their results and sensationalise their work for political means hound out people doing actual work like Maxwell.

On the bright side Maxwell's main line of work is not putting together the most moronic graphs ever seen in the dev list, and he will be continuing with development.

[manselr]

I miss gmaxwell as nullc on reddit he was a great guy and even replied to me a couple of times with some basic questions about multisig, even tho im a noob when it comes to the technical aspect he was nice to answer. Anyway I hope he ever comes back at least on reddit because as far as I know he has left now from... pretty much everywhere (except here on this forum).

[marcus_of_augustus]

Today Gavin pretty much admitted that he's down to end fungibility and enable law enforcement on Bitcoin because "think of the baddies":

https://archive.is/4jL7n#selection-13347.0-13407.316

[–]gavinandresen 0 points 1 hour ago

So...
Imagine we live in Voluntopia. There are no governments, everybody is free to interact, to put whatever they like into their bodies, etc.
There would still be law enforcement, of course, it would just be private law enforcement instead of government law enforcement.
If we lived in such a world, would it be OK to talk with law enforcement about how criminals use Bitcoin or the block chain to defraud or extort people?
I'm pragmatic; I want to see Bitcoin succeed, and I want to help law enforcement catch people who are harming other people. Yes, I know government law enforcement does a lot of OTHER things that have nothing to do with bad people hurting good people; I hope that changes one day.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether it is better long-term strategy to engage with people you disagree with or disengage. Maybe if I'd studied history or politics instead of computer science I'd believe disengagement was the best strategy; maybe somebody who HAS studied history or politics can chime in....

gavin has been #rekt on this issue for as long as I can remember. I stumped him with the question when I first raised the link between fungibility and digital traceability, on this forum, to which he still hasn't responded ...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7945.msg121108#msg121108

[muyuu]

Cheers for that. This deserves archiving, just in case.

https://archive.is/gjXxM#selection-4667.0-4671.244

If you're willing to muck with the transaction processing code, you could only allow transactions to addresses that have been created and blessed by the Central Authority.  You'd have to also teach the wallet code not to create lots of addresses, but if you're going to require users to register and not be anonymous you might as well centrally create and issue them their wallets.

You then need a mechanism to broadcast new, blessed public keys to the entire network, but that might be as simple as generating a transaction from a baked-in blessed address (owed by the Central Authority) to the newly created blessed address.

[muyuu]

Just have a look at this   HAHAHA

https://archive.is/gqHB8

They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement.  

Oh, and Poe's Law is hitting even among their ranks. Can't tell satire any more. I can understand that feeling just fine, mind.

[hdbuck]

Just have a look at this   HAHAHA

https://archive.is/gqHB8

They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement.  

Oh, and Poe's Law is hitting even among their ranks. Can't tell satire any more. I can understand that feeling just fine, mind.

"But their huge egos caused them to use a 95% threshold! "

lmao.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Just have a look at this   HAHAHA

https://archive.is/gqHB8

They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement.  

Oh, and Poe's Law is hitting even among their ranks. Can't tell satire any more. I can understand that feeling just fine, mind.

this is seriously funny, but off-the-reservation-batshite-crazy at the same time ... worse yet it provoked me into looking at r.bitcoinxt for the first time and my eye-balls feel dirty now ... glorifying dear leader benny diktator hearn with his picture on top is more than a little creepy, just sayin guys.

[notbatman]

Just have a look at this   HAHAHA

https://archive.is/gqHB8

They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement.  

Oh, and Poe's Law is hitting even among their ranks. Can't tell satire any more. I can understand that feeling just fine, mind.

ROFLCOPTER

[Lauda]

Just have a look at this   HAHAHA

https://archive.is/gqHB8

They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement.  

It's probably the same person that helps Peter Rtroll write his papers. There was a time when one could actually discuss with them, but now it is just getting silly.

[Zarathustra]

Just have a look at this   HAHAHA

https://archive.is/gqHB8

They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement.  

It's probably the same person that helps Peter Rtroll write his papers. There was a time when one could actually discuss with them, but now it is just getting silly.

Such ad hominem threads like this one will never convince a majority in the bitcoin community. Your 'strategy' won't work.

[hdbuck]

Just have a look at this  HAHAHA

https://archive.is/gqHB8

They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement. 

It's probably the same person that helps Peter Rtroll write his papers. There was a time when one could actually discuss with them, but now it is just getting silly.

Such ad hominem threads like this one will never convince a majority in the bitcoin community. Your 'strategy' won't work.

Sure, the majority seems overwhelming in this subreddit...

[VeritasSapere]

Just have a look at this   HAHAHA

https://archive.is/gqHB8

They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement.  

It's probably the same person that helps Peter Rtroll write his papers. There was a time when one could actually discuss with them, but now it is just getting silly.

Such ad hominem threads like this one will never convince a majority in the bitcoin community. Your 'strategy' won't work.

It does seem like all they have doing over the last page is conduct personal attacks on Mike, Hearn and Peter R, which I personally think are unjustified and are mostly comprised of taking what they said out of context. Furthermore I actually think it is irrelevant what these people believe or what their motivations are. What matters is what is in the code, their actions and the content of their arguments related to the code that they advocate. We do not not need to trust any group of developers with the future of Bitcoin, Bitcoin is trust less, if anyone introduces code we do not agree with we can always choose not to adopt it.

[Lauda]

-snip-
We do not not need to trust any group of developers with the future of Bitcoin, Bitcoin is trust less, if anyone introduces code we do not agree with we can always choose not to adopt it.

Having a laugh != personal attack. You might want to revisit that definition. What you said is true though. Nobody likes Hearn, XT nor the buggy code (I don't want to look for old information - it's on reddit) that he has implemented and thus there is near zero support for it.

[Zarathustra]

-snip-
We do not not need to trust any group of developers with the future of Bitcoin, Bitcoin is trust less, if anyone introduces code we do not agree with we can always choose not to adopt it.

Having a laugh != personal attack. You might want to revisit that definition. What you said is true though. Nobody likes Hearn,

Nobody is listening to you and your ad hominem laughter, but many listen to Mike.

[VeritasSapere]

-snip-
We do not not need to trust any group of developers with the future of Bitcoin, Bitcoin is trust less, if anyone introduces code we do not agree with we can always choose not to adopt it.

Having a laugh != personal attack. You might want to revisit that definition. What you said is true though. Nobody likes Hearn, XT nor the buggy code (I don't want to look for old information - it's on reddit) that he has implemented and thus there is near zero support for it.

You saying that there is near to zero support for BIP101 is simply not true, furthermore it now seems like more options are starting to appear like Bitcoin unlimited.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-ideas-arguments-and-proposals.123/#post-2903