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

[danielW]

Just in case you were getting used to the upward moving price; looks like it's time for a new drama-dump: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3wj0du/gavin_we_want_to_donated_to_you/cxwx4hx  

I am actually starting to get more then a little peeved at the orbital bombing.  It's like every time Core really gets into a good productive flow (and, coincidentally, the market start pepping up) we get a new wave of surprising uninformed negativity rained down from above.

This is a low move gmaxwell attributing the drop in price with these statements coming from Gavin. I know people that have spent a lifetime doing price analysis, and they would never be so specific and certain in their conviction that such a singular event would have caused this. You are a smart guy you really should know better, unless you are now also claiming to be an expert in markets? This is not the first time I have seen you use such manipulative fear mongering tactics. I can not prove that you are being manipulative without knowing your motivations and the level of your sincerity. However I return to the thought that you really should know better.

Be a little patient... there is stuff happening I've promised not to talk about yet. You aren't the only one unhappy about the priorities of the Bitcoin Core project....

This statement by Gavin is exiting, it is good to know there is activity behind the scenes. After all there is a very large group of people now that do fundamentally disagree with the direction that Core is taking Bitcoin into. There are irreconcilable differences in ideology which do need to be resolved one way or another.

When hearn and Gavin announced XT there was an immediate and sharp drop in price. That was because of debate and release of XT. No point avoiding that for the sake of political correctness to not upset XT folk like you.



If you truly care about fear mongering you should really have an issue with Hearns "crash landing" FUD.


edit: price drop should not determine whether something is good or bad. It just so happens that XT is really bad though lol.

[marcus_of_augustus]

If you truly care about fear mongering you should really have an issue with Hearns "crash landing" FUD.

... ironic that Hearn himself spectacularly crash-landed out of the project .... right into the banker's R3 talk-shop for has-beens.

[danielW]

Just in case you were getting used to the upward moving price; looks like it's time for a new drama-dump: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3wj0du/gavin_we_want_to_donated_to_you/cxwx4hx  

I am actually starting to get more then a little peeved at the orbital bombing.  It's like every time Core really gets into a good productive flow (and, coincidentally, the market start pepping up) we get a new wave of surprising uninformed negativity rained down from above.

My guess is that coinbase et al will attempt to start new development team but who knows.

I am confident these guys dont want Bitcoin under influence of 'cypherpunks'.  They see it as bad for business. They view cypherpunks as a nuisance and unrealistic idealists, but they are wrong.  

Off-course they would not say that though, and the block-size is a blown up issue that makes for a convenient opportunity to gather support they would not otherwise have.

I would strap in boys and girls because this will be a fight that will likely go on for decades. Personally I don't intend to back down. I intend to fight to win as much freedom and privacy as possible.  To make crypto-currencies as hard for governments to control as possible.

[danielW]

The Chinese eco-system can be our allies, even if some of them dont care about privacy. They have no interest in Coinbase or big western companies (and therefore by extension the US government) having undue influence in Bitcoin.

It only makes Bitcoin a harder sell to their own regulators and gov.

[VeritasSapere]

Its funny how you are aligning yourself with the cyberpunks, without actually qualifying what that means and how that is supposedly helping your argument. It seems like you are attaching yourself to a movement in order to lend your views credence. However I do not see how the cyberpunk movement is even relevant in this case. It is not clear based on the ideology of that movement which path seems to be most inline with that particular ideology. I could easily argue that increasing the blocksize is more inline with the cyberpunk movement. I do not see the point to this however since this does not actually strengthen my argumentation whatsoever, I would only be attempting to make myself look better.

A cypherpunk is any activist advocating widespread use of strong cryptography as a route to social and political change.

I think this does actually describe the believe of most Bitcoiners well, except for those Bitcoiners that are still denying the political aspects to what is happening here, which is ironic considering the political roots of the cyberpunk movement. I think the best way to effect the most social change is to allow for increased adoption and global use of this technology. BIP101 best accomplishes this by having steady predictable growth and by not allowing the stream of transactions to be blocked, unlike what Core is presently suggesting.

It is good to recognize however that if Bitcoin is intended for global adoption that eventually the economic majority who rules Bitcoin will at a certain point not be primarily made up of cyberpunks, unless we succeed in spreading this philosophy faster then Bitcoin spreads, which I think is unlikely. Over time this ideology will become more and more diluted within Bitcoin and its influence over its direction will waver. I think this is oke, it is what would achieve the most social and political change after all.

I do not actually want increased anonymity within Bitcoin, within a certain extend. Better IP obfuscation would be fine however anonymizing the links between transactions for instance I would be opposed to. This is because I would like to see banks, governments and corporations operate on the Bitcoin blockchain, this would create a better world, its effects are rather profound actually in terms of the amount of problems this would solve. This is why having a transparent blockchain is so important.

I am a big fan of alternative anonymous cryptocurrencies, I think these are great for private use when we do desire more privacy. I suppose what I am saying here is that maybe it is wrong to attempt to "force" this cyberpunk vision onto Bitcoin considering that was never the intention to begin with, it might also be worth contemplating that mass adoption, ease of use and low cost might actually be desirable if our objective is to gain as much adoption as possible for the duel reason of both securing the network and helping to bring about the most social and political change.

If history is any guide, Bitcoin will not likely become a settlement system unless it first has widespread adoption as a payment system

At least Bitpay gets it, so does Coinbase. I know you guys do not like these companies and you are happy to stand against them however I am happy to stand with them, after all it is companies like these that are more likely to represent the economic majority, when it does come down to a vote.

I have also recently been thinking that I would be happy to see Bitcoin split, this would allow the market to decide over time which chain will be considered superior. I am confident that the big block chain with an abundance of transactional capacity and low fees would rise to the top eventually, it is basic economics really. I have come to realize that some of these ideological differences are irreconcilable, which might indeed necessitate such a split. I believe hard forks serve as an important governance mechanism within Bitcoin, this is how fundamental disagreements within Bitcoin should be resolved.

It could be however that once that time comes, that the small blockists will be in the minority. After all Satoshi was a greater big blockist then I am, I suppose according to your reasoning that would mean Satoshi was not a cyberpunk, I disagree obviously but you are free to believe what you want. Time will tell, either way I am confident that the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto will triumph, one way or another.

In my discussions with various members of Core, I have reached the conclusion that most of them simply disagree with the design of Bitcoin, which by design allows the consensus rules to be changed by a sufficient majority of miners and users, independent of what any group of technocrats wish. It is important to remember not to attribute malice where ignorance is equally explanatory. All of the devs I engage with are very strong in cryptography and computer science, which may make them less accepting of the fact that at its core, Bitcoin relies in the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus, not a group of educated technocrats. As an educated technocrat myself I can understand the sentiment. It would be better if math and only math governed Bitcoin. But that's not how Bitcoin is actually governed. At the end of the day, if social engineering and developer manipulation can kill Bitcoin, well then we're all betting on the wrong horse.

[danielW]

Its funny how you are aligning yourself with the cyberpunks, without actually qualifying what that means and how that is supposedly helping your argument. It seems like you are attaching yourself to a movement in order to lend your views credence. However I do not see how the cyberpunk movement is even relevant in this case. It is not clear based on the ideology of that movement which path seems to be most inline with that particular ideology. I could easily argue that increasing the blocksize is more inline with the cyberpunk movement. I do not see the point to this however since this does not actually strengthen my argumentation whatsoever, I would only be attempting to make myself look better.

A cypherpunk is any activist advocating widespread use of strong cryptography as a route to social and political change.

I think this does actually describe the believe of most Bitcoiners well, except for those Bitcoiners that are still denying the political aspects to what is happening here, which is ironic considering the political roots of the cyberpunk movement. I think the best way to effect the most social change is to allow for increased adoption and global use of this technology. BIP101 best accomplishes this by having steady predictable growth and by not allowing the stream of transactions to be blocked, unlike what Core is presently suggesting.

It is good to recognize however that if Bitcoin is intended for global adoption that eventually the economic majority who rules Bitcoin will at a certain point not be primarily made up of cyberpunks, unless we succeed in spreading this philosophy faster then Bitcoin spreads, which I think is unlikely. Over time this ideology will become more and more diluted within Bitcoin and its influence over its direction will waver. I think this is oke, it is what would achieve the most social and political change after all.

I do not actually want increased anonymity within Bitcoin, within a certain extend. Better IP obfuscation would be fine however anonymizing the links between transactions for instance I would be opposed to. This is because I would like to see banks, governments and corporations operate on the Bitcoin blockchain, this would create a better world, its effects are rather profound actually in terms of the amount of problems this would solve. This is why having a transparent blockchain is so important.

I am a big fan of alternative anonymous cryptocurrencies, I think these are great for private use when we do desire more privacy. I suppose what I am saying here is that maybe it is wrong to attempt to "force" this cyberpunk vision on Bitcoin considering that was never the intention to begin with, it might also be worth contemplating that mass adoption, ease of use and low cost might actually be desirable if our objective is to gain as much adoption as possible for the duel reason of both securing the network and helping to bring about social and political change.

If history is any guide, Bitcoin will not likely become a settlement system unless it first has widespread adoption as a payment system

At least Bitpay gets it, so does Coinbase. I know you guys do not like these companies and you are happy to stand against them however I am happy to stand with them, after all it is companies like these that are more likely to represent the economic majority, when it does come down to a vote.

I have also recently been thinking that I would be happy to see Bitcoin split and allowing the market to decide over time which one will be considered superior. I am confident that the big block chain with an abundance of transactional capacity and low fees will rise to the top eventually, it is basic economics really. I have come to realize that some of these ideological differences are irreconcilable, which might indeed necessitate such a split. I believe hard forks serve as an important governance mechanism within Bitcoin, this is how fundemental disagreements should be resolved.

It could be however that once that time comes it could turn out that the small blockists are in the minority. After all Satoshi Nakamoto was a greater big blockist then I am, I suppose according to your reasoning that would mean Satoshi was not a cyberpunk, I disagree obviously but you are free to believe what you want. Time will tell, either way I am confident that the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto will triumph, one way or another.

In my discussions with various members of Core, I have reached the conclusion that most of them simply disagree with the design of Bitcoin, which by design allows the consensus rules to be changed by a sufficient majority of miners and users, independent of what any group of technocrats wish. It is important to remember not to attribute malice where ignorance is equally explanatory. All of the devs I engage with are very strong in cryptography and computer science, which may make them less accepting of the fact that at its core, Bitcoin relies in the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus, not a group of educated technocrats. As an educated technocrat myself I can understand the sentiment. It would be better if math and only math governed Bitcoin. But that's not how Bitcoin is actually governed. At the end of the day, if social engineering and developer manipulation can kill Bitcoin, well then we're all betting on the wrong horse.

1) I have nothing against these companies (bitpay or coinbase), them making money or providing usefull services for users. I like them and support them.

That does not mean I have to be oblivious to the reality that they are big centralised companies that do not care much about privacy and have to be subservient to gov and regulators, thats a requirement of their business model.

2) re: cypherpunk

I view cypherpunks as people who design and create technology (often with use of crypto) that views the government and its power structures in an adversarial way. Effect social change by taking away power from gov and institutions and giving it along with privacy to everybody.

People like Nick Szabo, Adam Back, Bram Cohen etc. have through their work and their results have shown their credentials throughout decades!

People like Mike Hearn, Coinbase et al, who criticises privacy solutions like coinjoin, because it will make Bitcoin harder to accept by government are not that.

Through his work and statements Mike Hearn (and to lesser extent Gavin) have shown to not have the same world view. That does not make them bad people or mean they can not make valuable contributions.

[VeritasSapere]

I consider Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, jtoomim and the theZerg to better align with my believes and world view as developers compared to the Core developers you mention. I prefer their understanding of free market economics and Bitcoin governance specifically. In contrast I am strongly opposed to the governance model that Core is presently advocating, I consider it to be totalitarian in nature. The economic model that Core is operating under I also consider flawed, so much so that I would expect it to fail in the presence of real competition, this competition is also to be expected, especially if we end up with two concurrent chains.

Here is an example of a founding document for the governance of an alternative client implementation done right, Bitcoin Unlimited:

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articlesOfFederation

[tvbcof]

I consider Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, jtoomim and the theZerg to better align with my believes and world view as developers compared to the Core developers you mention. I prefer their understanding of free market economics and Bitcoin governance specifically.

Totally!  I call again to 'stop worrying and love the blockchain fork' (put more amusingly than I was able by...um...that very bright Israeli mining algo specialist who's name escapes me at the moment.)  It would be great for all concerned to focus on what is important to them and not be bothered by the other side.

Now is a great time to do it while Bitcoin is relatively small not having yet been economically necessary on a broad scale.  It is also fairly clear in most people's minds what is the right direction for their goals, and equally importantly, things seem to be pretty binary between a bloating system which gains strength from a broad userbase, and a tight system which derives strength from broad infrastructure support distribution.

Edit: Oh ya, Meni Rosenfeld (or something close to that.)

[danielW]

I prefer their understanding of free market economics and Bitcoin governance specifically. In contrast I am strongly opposed to the governance model that Core is presently advocating, I consider it to be totalitarian in nature.

And what is their understanding of how bitcoin should be governed?

Mike said Bitcoin core needs one person at the top a 'benovelent dictator' who should be Gavin. Thats what he intends for XT.

... but only after core dies which he said needs to happen.

Coinbase also want Gavin as benevolent dictator to head bitcoin development  (not one implementation but the whole protocol), thats what they said (paraphrasing).

You like that view on governance? You consider that view less totalitarian in nature?


Thanks but no thanks.


I prefer cores open, inclusive, cautious if maybe slower approach. It has worked very well so far and Bitcoin has been improving, and growing very well under that model.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I prefer their understanding of free market economics and Bitcoin governance specifically.

"bitcoin governance" is a myth concept that has been generated by the MIT media lab as a divisive issue. The term was not in circulation until Brian Forde began pumping the "bitcoin governance" propaganda soon after taking up his role after leaving the Obama Whitehouse.

https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative/launching-a-digital-currency-initiative-238fc678aba2

http://news.mit.edu/2015/brian-forde-media-lab-director-digital-currency-0415

... go figure, government guys want to "govern". Github or go home.

[Cconvert2G36]

Doing Garzik's 102, possibly followed by SegWit after a year of vetting and testing... you'd have taken 80% of the wind out of the XT'ers sails. There is a population out there that wants a conservative increase soon vs 800% + guessing at the next 20 years (this population may include nearly all major mining pools).

[VeritasSapere]

I prefer their understanding of free market economics and Bitcoin governance specifically. In contrast I am strongly opposed to the governance model that Core is presently advocating, I consider it to be totalitarian in nature.

And what is their understanding of how bitcoin should be governed?

Mike said Bitcoin core needs one person at the top a 'benovelent dictator' who should be Gavin. Thats what he intends for XT.

... but only after core dies which he said needs to happen.

Coinbase also want Gavin as benevolent dictator to head bitcoin development  (not one implementation but the whole protocol), thats what they said (paraphrasing).

You like that view on governance? You consider that view less totalitarian in nature?


Thanks but no thanks.

I prefer cores open, inclusive, cautious if maybe slower approach. It has worked very well so far and Bitcoin has been improving, and growing very well under that model.

You are arguing a straw man here and you are creating a false dichotomy. I am not saying that we should choose between one dictatorship or another in the form of a single client implementation. I am arguing that the way it should work is that we have multiple client implementations that people are free to choice from. Having an election with only one option is not really an election at all is it, that would be the very definition of totalitarianism. Furthermore I can also argue that Bitcoin's Unlimited internal governance mechanism will be superior to both XT and Core.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articlesOfFederation

[marcus_of_augustus]

you can spout your propaganda as much as you like but at the end of the day the Bitcoin Core developers are writing node software for the 5000+ people running node software .... not for anyone else, by definition.

Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.

[RoadTrain]

This thread never dies.

[VeritasSapere]

you can spout your propaganda as much as you like but at the end of the day the Bitcoin Core developers are writing node software for the 5000+ people running node software .... not for anyone else, by definition.

Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.

Denying the very existence of Bitcoin governance is not helping your case. After all there are decisions that need to be made, and there are differing opinions on what path to take. It is the question of who decides? I suppose you would argue that Core should decide for us, or that somehow they decide yet that is not a form of governance? Everything is political, whether you like it or not. As Socrates once wisely said, human beings are political animals.

This thread refuses to die in the same way that BIP101 refuses to die.

[marcus_of_augustus]

you can spout your propaganda as much as you like but at the end of the day the Bitcoin Core developers are writing node software for the 5000+ people running node software .... not for anyone else, by definition.

Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.

Denying the very existence of Bitcoin governance is not helping your case. After all there are decisions that need to be made, and there are differing opinions on what path to take. It is the question of who decides? I suppose you would argue that Core should decide for us, or that somehow they decide yet that is not a form of governance? Everything is political, whether you like it or not. As Socrates once wisely stated, human beings are political animals.

This thread refuses to die in the same way that BIP101 refuses to die.

BIP101 is dead. It is only your perverted necromancy that seems determined to parade and dance with the corpse.

There is no governance except in your demented mind. Nodes run whatever software they like and that decision will be decidedly apolitical.

Take your politics back to Washington, they have no power and are not welcomed here.

[VeritasSapere]

you can spout your propaganda as much as you like but at the end of the day the Bitcoin Core developers are writing node software for the 5000+ people running node software .... not for anyone else, by definition.

Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.

Denying the very existence of Bitcoin governance is not helping your case. After all there are decisions that need to be made, and there are differing opinions on what path to take. It is the question of who decides? I suppose you would argue that Core should decide for us, or that somehow they decide yet that is not a form of governance? Everything is political, whether you like it or not. As Socrates once wisely stated, human beings are political animals.

This thread refuses to die in the same way that BIP101 refuses to die.

BIP101 is dead. It is only your perverted necromancy that seems determined to parade and dance with the corpse.

There is no governance except in your demented mind. Nodes run whatever software they like and that decision will be decidedly apolitical.

Take your politics back to Washington, they have no power and are not welcomed here.

People run nodes, and people might have political reasons for doing so, I certainly do after all.

Bitcoin should not and cannot be divorced from pre-existing political theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc

[valiz]

you can spout your propaganda as much as you like but at the end of the day the Bitcoin Core developers are writing node software for the 5000+ people running node software .... not for anyone else, by definition.

Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.

Denying the very existence of Bitcoin governance is not helping your case. After all there are decisions that need to be made, and there are differing opinions on what path to take. It is the question of who decides? I suppose you would argue that Core should decide for us, or that somehow they decide yet that is not a form of governance? Everything is political, whether you like it or not. As Socrates once wisely said, human beings are political animals.

This thread refuses to die in the same way that BIP101 refuses to die.

Governance refers to "all processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market or network, whether over a family, tribe, formal or informal organization or territory and whether through laws, norms, power or language."

Bitcoin = p2p network implementing a currency

"Bitcoin governance" only makes sense to you because you are a misguided political scientist with no computer engineering skills nor basic economic skills. Go ahead and shout your intelectual "ad hominem" "straw man" "false dichotomy" bla bla. "Bitcoin governance" doesn't make sense.

Bitcoin is a currency and should not be "governed" by anyone. If it comes to this, then it has failed.

Based on your argumentation with "straw men" "false dichotomies" whatever, "gold governance" exists as well. 

It would be wise for you to stop the propaganda and go do something useful. Fighting those marxists writing neverending theories would be a suggestion, since they use similar techniques as you do.

BIP101 is dead. Long live Bitcoin! 

[VeritasSapere]

Bitcoin governance is important exactly for the reasons of ensuring that the network is not governed by anyone. If you ignore politics it will end up biting you in the ass.

Governance refers to "all processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market or network, whether over a family, tribe, formal or informal organization or territory and whether through laws, norms, power or language."

This is a good definition of governance, Bitcoin does definitely fit within this definition perfectly. After all it is a computer network with laws, that can be changed by the economic majority. Here is one of my basic descriptions of Bitcoin governance:

Consensus is an emergent property which flows from the will of the economic majority. Proof of work is the best way to measure this consensus. The pools act as proxy for the miners, pools behave in a similar way to representatives within a representative democracy. Then in turn the miners act as a proxy for the economic majority. Since the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. In effect the economic majority rules Bitcoin, in other words the market rules Bitcoin. Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus.

It is extremely important to understand that these problems have been analyzed before. Until the Bitcoin community admits that they have political problems rather then technical problems they are trapped.

[brg444]

Am I the only one feeling strong urges to puke everytime this politician muppet shows up with his endless verbiage.

Cypherpunks write code.

That is why you are so powerless and ineffective in your attempt to overthrow Core's oversight of the protocol.

All you've got going for you is braindead articles of federation while Core is busy churning out code.

If you desire to be part of you so-called "governance" process then first run a node & second get busy contributing to the open-source repo or STFU.

Github or go home.