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

[marcus_of_augustus]

I would put money on the fact that Peter R is probably being paid by someone who wants to kill Bitcoin's decentralization.

He seems very aggressive in his efforts to disrupt, smear and gather personal information on important contributors. Who knows what his true motivations are.

[1715662861]

1715662861

[1715662861]

1715662861

[1715662861]

1715662861

[1715662861]

1715662861

[tvbcof]

It's not just Rand. The Freemasons and illuminati have been working against Bitcoin from the beginning. ...

Generally speaking, and using your short-hand notation, it's more the case that the former commissions the latter for projects such as this.
...

I've never bought into that whole secret society controlling everything BS. It's no secret, we know exactly who's controlling everything and it isn't us. Business interests don't need secret back room meetings or a bunch of old dinosaurs wearing silly looking fez hats with secret handshakes when encrypted email is available.
...

There either are the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg group, Council on Foreign Relations, United Nations, Club of Rome, etc, etc, or there are not.  The evidence I've seen indicates that such groups do exist, and none of them seem to be completely 'open'.

These groups have either formed and held periodic meetings with no effect whatsoever but the participants don't tire of trying, or they persist in part because they do achieve effects.  I think there is evidence, both direct and tangential, that some of the activities of these groups do achieve some effects.

There may be individuals and entities who participate in and fund these groups multiple of such groups simultaneously or there are not.  I believe that there is evidence that there are.

My belief is that to imagine a single small group or individual at the top of the pyramid controlling everything with precision strains credulity.  My guess is that there is considerable global influence from policies and plans arrived at in meetings of these various groups.  I also believe that there is more than a little tension within these groups with individual participants having somewhat different goals and priorities and ideas about how to obtain a result.  Human nature being what it is (especially among the more successful and powerful individuals of the world) there is probably more than a little jockeying for position.  I suspect that some of the plans which were formulated out of some of these groups have fallen flat while other operations have exceeded their wildest expectations.  These are just things which make intuative sense to me and what I believe I observe from the outside.

---
On a slightly related note, do yourself a favor and listen to one of the presentations about 'technocracy' by Patrick Woods if you've not already.  Here's a link:  

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNkDiBOO4H0

As someone who muses about a variety of aspects of our world and someone who has spent a fraction of my life in the high-tech world and in some organizations who have been at the fore, this guy's thesis has huge explanatory power.  My current 'strongest hypothesis' is that some of the most powerful people on the planet have seen 'technocracy' as a hugely useful tool to use in the future.  Many many other people who would/will be the 'technocrats' see it both as a paycheck and in a lot of cases as a utopia which could benefit mankind.  For my part I am quite certain that the latter could not be farther from what we'd eventually see.

As Woods mentions, we are looking at a completely new and novel economic system with Technocracy more than anything.  Suddenly 'smart meters' (which I first ran across deep in the bowels of tech-land) make a great deal of sense.  Similarly 'the internet of things.'  Similarly, when executive secretary of the UNFCCC Christiana_Figueres says "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," it makes a great deal of sense.

If this guy Woods is on to something even partially, those who have a meaningful stake in Bitcoin (or metals, property, etc) would do well to avail themselves of some of his ideas.  What conclusions to draw are not clear.

[VeritasSapere]

An Economic Change Event is a period of market chaos, where large changes to prices and sets of economic actors occurs over a short time period. A Fee Event is a notable Economic Change Event, where a realistic projection forsees higher fee/KB on average, pricing some economic actors (bitcoin projects and businesses) out of the system.

The game theory bidding behavior is different for a mostly-empty resource versus a usually-full resource.  Prices are different.  Profitable business models are different.  Users (the set of economic actors on the network) are different.

Failure to increase block size is not obviously-conservative, it is a conscious choice, electing for one economic state and set of actors and prices over another. Choosing Future Fee Market over Today's Fee Market. It is rational to reason that maintaining TFM is more conservative than enduring an Economic Change Event from TFM to FFM. It is rational to reason that maintaining similar prices and economic actors is less disruptive. Failure to increase block size will lead to a Fee Event sooner rather than later. Failure to plan ahead for a Fee Event will lead to greater market chaos and User pain.

Some Developers wish to accelerate the Fee Event, and a veto can accomplish that. In the current developer dynamics, 1-2 key developers can and very likely would veto any block size increase.

This is an extreme moral hazard: A few Bitcoin Core committers can veto increase and thereby reshape bitcoin economics, price some businesses out of the system. It is less of a moral hazard to keep the current economics [by raising block size] and not exercise such power.

The current trajectory of no-block-size-increase can lead to short time market chaos, actor chaos, businesses no longer viable. In a $6.6B economy, it is criminal to let the Service undergo an Economic Change event without warning users loudly, months in advance:  "Dear users, ECE has accelerated potential due to developers preferring a transition from TFM to FFM."

Further, wallet software User experience is very, very poor in a hyper-competitive fee market.

Almost all bitcoin businesses, exchanges and miners have stated they want a block size increase.  See the many media articles, BIP 101 letter, and wiki.

It is a valid and rational economic choice to subsidize the system with lower fees in the beginning. Many miners, for example, openly state they prefer long term system growth over maximizing tiny amounts of current day income. Vetoing a block size increase has the effect of eliminating that economic choice as an option.

Without exaggeration, I have never seen this much disconnect between user wishes and dev outcomes in 20+ years of open source.

Higher Service prices can negatively impact system security. Bitcoin depends on a virtuous cycle of users boosting and maintaining bitcoin's network effect, incentivizing miners, increasing security. Higher prices that reduce bitcoin's user count and network effect can have the opposite impact.

We only know for certain that blocks-mostly-not-full works. We do not know that changing to blocks-mostly-full works. Changing to a new economic system includes boatloads of risk.

The worst possible outcome is letting the ecosystem randomly drift into the first Fee Event without openly stating the new economic policy choices and consequences. The simple fact is *inaction* on this supply-limited resource, block size, will change bitcoin to a new economic shape and with different economic actors, selecting some and not others. It is better to kick the can and gather crucial field data, because next-step (FFM) is very much not fleshed out.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

[brg444]

zip

Please stop spamming the thread with the same posts repeatedly.

Oh and..fork off!

[HostFat]

Does Gavin have this power??

Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it.

Anyway, it will be meaningless action.

[RoadTrain]

zip

Please stop spamming the thread with the same posts repeatedly.

+1 Especially since no one cares.

[tvbcof]

Does Gavin have this power??

Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it.

Anyway, it will be meaningless action.

I wish he would [censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo as suggested by Rizun.]  It would take about 3 minutes for a replacement (or 15) to pop up. 

It would be funny if the repo utilized by the actual Bitcoin contributors of this time to grant Hearndresen commit privs just for shits-n-giggles.  Also funny, of course, to see the main body of work committed to Hearndresen's repo be merges from the new one.

[da2ce7]

@brg444

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

I think that this topic is officially over.

Now may be a good time to close this thread, but what a fun ride it has been!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Does Gavin have this power??

Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it.

Well, shouldn't OP know this?

[marcus_of_augustus]

@brg444

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

I think that this topic is officially over.

Now may be a good time to close this thread, but what a fun ride it has been!

This could spawn further epic officially #rekt threads, Peter_R officially rekt and cypherdoc officially #rekt ... #rektage piling up all around.

[VeritasSapere]

@brg444

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

I think that this topic is officially over.

Now may be a good time to close this thread, but what a fun ride it has been!

I am not convinced that Core will increase the blocksize. I think it would be wrong to expect people to "trust" Core to do this. Remember that all that Core needs to do is stall and delay, this would bring about the early "fee market" which they have been advocating for, which is in direct opposition to many peoples wishes and the original vision of Satoshi.

[brg444]

@brg444

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

I think that this topic is officially over.

Now may be a good time to close this thread, but what a fun ride it has been!

I am not convinced that Core will increase the blocksize. I think it would be wrong to expect people to "trust" Core to do this. Remember that all that Core needs to do is stall and delay, this would bring about the early "fee market" which they have been advocating for, which is in direct opposition to many peoples wishes and the original vision of Satoshi.

The roadmap is very clearly laid out. Indeed there is no direct blocksize increase through a hardfork that is planned for the foreseeable future.

Instead we get immediate 75% increase through an uncontentious, backward compatible softfork which also brings about significant improvements in other aspects of the protocol.

Spare us the rest of your FUD. If we can't trust Core with the aforementioned proposal then who should we trust or whose plan should we favor?

I don't see any team proposing anything remotely as sound and well thought out so maybe you can enlighten me?

Spare us your FUD. You lost, get over it and stop being so impressed by the charlatans over at bitco.in. If you don't want to save yourself no one can.

[theymos]

Yay for the new developers who not actually write code, but write wonderful science fiction about the future of bitcoin. Woo them who have spent years working on the actual network as they may insist on inconvenient realities, and they who call for restrained step by step progress. We don't need them anymore. In this new era we only want optimistic visions and whitepapers, and dream. Let the fractal block trees grow to fill the skies, so that we can climb to the moon!

 

[brg444]

Yay for the new developers who not actually write code, but write wonderful science fiction about the future of bitcoin. Woo them who have spent years working on the actual network as they may insist on inconvenient realities, and they who call for restrained step by step progress. We don't need them anymore. In this new era we only want optimistic visions and whitepapers, and dream. Let the fractal block trees grow to fill the skies, so that we can climb to the moon!

 

Was just about to post this 

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Yay for the new developers who not actually write code, but write wonderful science fiction about the future of bitcoin. Woo them who have spent years working on the actual network as they may insist on inconvenient realities, and they who call for restrained step by step progress. We don't need them anymore. In this new era we only want optimistic visions and whitepapers, and dream. Let the fractal block trees grow to fill the skies, so that we can climb to the moon!

 

Peter's idea is not to replace Core with a different team in the repo, it's to nuke the repo so that ALL teams have to post their offerings in new repos that don't have the privileged position of being historically connected to Satoshi - a privileged position that Core now enjoys.

[brg444]

Yay for the new developers who not actually write code, but write wonderful science fiction about the future of bitcoin. Woo them who have spent years working on the actual network as they may insist on inconvenient realities, and they who call for restrained step by step progress. We don't need them anymore. In this new era we only want optimistic visions and whitepapers, and dream. Let the fractal block trees grow to fill the skies, so that we can climb to the moon!

 

Peter's idea is not to replace Core with a different team in the repo, it's to nuke the repo so that ALL teams have to post their offerings in new repos that don't have the privileged position of being historically connected to Satoshi - a privileged position that Core now enjoys.

That is just blatant distraction that serves no productive purpose and would do nothing to diminish Core's current position.

To be precise: these are excuses made by sore losers who are slowly but surely contemplating their vanishing relevance in the face of Core's most recent advances.

They've repeatedly failed to show any kind of ability to put forward a serious alternative that stands on its own merits. It's clear they lack the ingenuity, resources and open-mindedness to create something innovative of their own to compete with Core hence why they repeatedly resort to under-handed tactics in an attempt to cover-up for their own shortcomings.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Yay for the new developers who not actually write code, but write wonderful science fiction about the future of bitcoin. Woo them who have spent years working on the actual network as they may insist on inconvenient realities, and they who call for restrained step by step progress. We don't need them anymore. In this new era we only want optimistic visions and whitepapers, and dream. Let the fractal block trees grow to fill the skies, so that we can climb to the moon!

 

Peter's idea is not to replace Core with a different team in the repo, it's to nuke the repo so that ALL teams have to post their offerings in new repos that don't have the privileged position of being historically connected to Satoshi - a privileged position that Core now enjoys.

That is just blatant distraction that serves no productive purpose and would do nothing to diminish Core's current position.

To be precise: these are excuses made by sore losers who are slowly but surely contemplating their vanishing relevance in the face of Core's most recent advances.

They've repeatedly failed to show any kind of ability to put forward a serious alternative that stands on its own merits. It's clear they lack the ingenuity, resources and open-mindedness to create something innovative of their own to compete with Core hence why they repeatedly resort to under-handed tactics in an attempt to cover-up for their own shortcomings.

I know this sort of us-versus-them rhetoric is popular with the kids around here. But smugness really isn’t an attractive quality.

[brg444]

Yay for the new developers who not actually write code, but write wonderful science fiction about the future of bitcoin. Woo them who have spent years working on the actual network as they may insist on inconvenient realities, and they who call for restrained step by step progress. We don't need them anymore. In this new era we only want optimistic visions and whitepapers, and dream. Let the fractal block trees grow to fill the skies, so that we can climb to the moon!

 

Peter's idea is not to replace Core with a different team in the repo, it's to nuke the repo so that ALL teams have to post their offerings in new repos that don't have the privileged position of being historically connected to Satoshi - a privileged position that Core now enjoys.

That is just blatant distraction that serves no productive purpose and would do nothing to diminish Core's current position.

To be precise: these are excuses made by sore losers who are slowly but surely contemplating their vanishing relevance in the face of Core's most recent advances.

They've repeatedly failed to show any kind of ability to put forward a serious alternative that stands on its own merits. It's clear they lack the ingenuity, resources and open-mindedness to create something innovative of their own to compete with Core hence why they repeatedly resort to under-handed tactics in an attempt to cover-up for their own shortcomings.

I know this sort of us-versus-them rhetoric is popular with the kids around here. But smugness really isn’t an attractive quality.

Did you look at the name of the thread you're in?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I'm aware of you. Yes.

[RoadTrain]

Yay for the new developers who not actually write code, but write wonderful science fiction about the future of bitcoin. Woo them who have spent years working on the actual network as they may insist on inconvenient realities, and they who call for restrained step by step progress. We don't need them anymore. In this new era we only want optimistic visions and whitepapers, and dream. Let the fractal block trees grow to fill the skies, so that we can climb to the moon!

 

Peter's idea is not to replace Core with a different team in the repo, it's to nuke the repo so that ALL teams have to post their offerings in new repos that don't have the privileged position of being historically connected to Satoshi - a privileged position that Core now enjoys.

This idea is a non-starter. Incidentally, it's a precise example of 'us-versus-them', which will bring ever more divide and alienation, which you seem to be advocating against. So cut the bullshit.