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

[valiz]

When faced with irreconcilable differences in the vision of Bitcoin, we can either compromise or split. It is that simple. There is no need to insult me, I stand by my convictions and I am not a statist shill. Decentralization and financial freedom for all is my war cry in this battle of ideas. I stand by the original vision of Satoshi and we can all choose our own destiny.

Yep, you are something worse than a statist shill. You are a highly intelligent and educated statist shill 

I stand by the original vision of Satoshi and Bitcoin needs to remain unchanged and ungoverned. It should be like gold, not some stupid populist currency.

[VeritasSapere]

Please do not pervert my poetry, it is not a very nice thing to do.

[VeritasSapere]

When faced with irreconcilable differences in the vision of Bitcoin, we can either compromise or split. It is that simple. There is no need to insult me, I stand by my convictions and I am not a statist shill. Decentralization and financial freedom for all is my war cry in this battle of ideas. I stand by the original vision of Satoshi and we can all choose our own destiny.

Yep, you are something worse than a statist shill. You are a highly intelligent and educated statist shill  

I stand by the original vision of Satoshi and Bitcoin needs to remain unchanged and ungoverned. It should be like gold, not some stupid populist currency.

You are fundamentally wrong in your conception of what Bitcoin is. Maybe one day you could help create an alternative cryptocurrency that is unaffected by the mechanizations of human beings. Unfortunately for you that is not what Bitcoin is, was or ever intended to be. It is an interesting idea that you have however and I can imagine how it certainly would be appealing to technocrats and scientific minds.

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.

[hdbuck]

While they do bring up some good points, authoritarian statists Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen write:

The proposed roadmap currently being discussed in the bitcoin community has some good points in that it does have a plan to accommodate more transactions, but it fails speak plainly to bitcoin users and acknowledge key downsides. The roadmap summary most relevant to bitcoin users is:
Bitcoin is shifting to a new economic policy, with possibly higher fees.
Core block size does not change; there has been zero compromise on that issue. In the face of rising transaction volume — it has doubled over the past year — getting stuck at 1M results in higher fees, notable economic changes, and suffers from increased political risk by embracing an accidentally-created economic policy tool.

There's that word again! It seems to me that anyone talking about "compromises" or "compromising" is coming from a position of pushing a pre-set agenda, not from the mindset of a dialogue in which all the participants share their ideas/arguments for the purpose of arriving at the best solution.

And as commenter Eric Voskuil observes:

This piece is agitprop. Witness the terms "way forward", "leadership" and "plain talk" in the same sentence.

More and more and more it looks like it's all about "compromising" the greatest threat to the central banksters since Andrew fucking Jackson.

Technological empowerment of volunteerism leading us towards freedom.

That should be voluntaryism, you statist shill. When was the last time you had a thought that was your own?

Problem is core power Rangers think bitcoin rely one them whilst in reality people are free to implement crafted bitcoin clients to meet their needs.

I do applaud the effort of enabling a référence client but because network effect pushing a contentious fork is likely to fail because decentralization

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

BTCC: It would be much better to have the support of Core, but if Core doesn't include a blocksize increase soon in the master branch, we may be willing to start running a fork.

[brg444]

BTCC: It would be much better to have the support of Core, but if Core doesn't include a blocksize increase soon in the master branch, we may be willing to start running a fork.

That is a late comment that was retracted after announcement of the Seg Wit proposal. Nice try though.

[brg444]

core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands

This might be the single most obvious statement ever and Blockstreamers aren't buyin' it.

Not that it really matters but the only one who's put forward any kind of sensible dynamic cap proposal is a guy from Blockstream so as usual you don't know wtf you're talking about.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

BTCC: It would be much better to have the support of Core, but if Core doesn't include a blocksize increase soon in the master branch, we may be willing to start running a fork.

That is a late comment that was retracted after announcement of the Seg Wit proposal. Nice try though.

This was literally 2 days ago.

[VeritasSapere]

BTCC: It would be much better to have the support of Core, but if Core doesn't include a blocksize increase soon in the master branch, we may be willing to start running a fork.

That is a late comment that was retracted after announcement of the Seg Wit proposal. Nice try though.

This comment was made after the SW proposal, do you have a link to this statement being retracted?

[brg444]

BTCC: It would be much better to have the support of Core, but if Core doesn't include a blocksize increase soon in the master branch, we may be willing to start running a fork.

That is a late comment that was retracted after announcement of the Seg Wit proposal. Nice try though.

This was literally 2 days ago.

Try 3 weeks ago

https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/674834690377842691

And consider this from the post you linked:

I generally did not bring up SegWit during the conversations I had with miners, and neither did the miners, so it is also absent. (I thought that it was too early for miners to have an informed opinion of SegWit's relative merits.)

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

BTCC: It would be much better to have the support of Core, but if Core doesn't include a blocksize increase soon in the master branch, we may be willing to start running a fork.

That is a late comment that was retracted after announcement of the Seg Wit proposal. Nice try though.

This comment was made after the SW proposal, do you have a link to this statement being retracted?

Same author, 6 hours ago:

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yqe7c/segregated_witness_still_sounds_complicated_why/

[Peter R]

Problem is core power Rangers think bitcoin rely one them whilst in reality people are free to implement crafted bitcoin clients to meet their needs.

I do applaud the effort of enabling a référence client but because network effect pushing a contentious fork is likely to fail because decentralization

Well said.  The Blockstream Core Central Planning Committee has lost control.  People are waking up to the fact that they've always been free to implement crafted Bitcoin clients to meet their needs.  I too applaud the effort of enabling a reference client but that doesn't mean that the Core Power Rangers can run roughshod over the community.

[brg444]

BTCC: It would be much better to have the support of Core, but if Core doesn't include a blocksize increase soon in the master branch, we may be willing to start running a fork.

That is a late comment that was retracted after announcement of the Seg Wit proposal. Nice try though.

This comment was made after the SW proposal, do you have a link to this statement being retracted?

Same author, 6 hours ago:

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yqe7c/segregated_witness_still_sounds_complicated_why/

Huh?

The author in question was reporting hearsays from discussion w/ some people from BTCC and is not representing BTCC himself.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The author is Jonathan Toomim. Why are you confused?

[brg444]

The author is Jonathan Toomim. Why are you confused?

You first linked a statement supposedly from representative of BTCC that was reported by Toomim.

I pointed out to you that these statements had been made absent of clear consideration of the SW proposal. See the twitter link I posted?

Now you reply with a completely different post from Toomim that is completely irrelevant so really I'm not sure why you think I'm the one who's confused.

[Zarathustra]

I'm not the only one who knows the conjuction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Front

The trivial, mostly harmless "National" strain is not what is meant or implied 99% of the time by the unadorned term you originally used.

That nearly obsolete reference doesn't fit your (typically overdramatic) metaphor about authoritarianism, which compares Bitcoin.org's blacklisting of Coinbase ("small block terrorism") with the Russian Revolution's violent destruction of one of the world's greatest empires and resulting Stalinist dictatorship.

Thanks for the opportunity to point out Bitcoin.org is not in any way accurately described as Bolshevik, because not giving Coinbase free advertising isn't the same thing as the war/terror/famine of the world revolution's first dominoes.

LOL.
You know very well that the notorious terrorism of the Politbüro went not just against Coinbase.

[Zarathustra]

core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands

This might be the single most obvious statement ever and Blockstreamers aren't buyin' it.

Except that this is practically some pipe dream  utopia if not completely irrelevant.

Forkers are free to fork into some altcoin with whatever parameter they want tho.

Yes, core is working hard on its monster 'soft'-fork into an Altcoin.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The author is Jonathan Toomim. Why are you confused?

You first linked a statement supposedly from representative of BTCC that was reported by Toomim.

I pointed out to you that these statements had been made absent of clear consideration of the SW proposal. See the twitter link I posted?

Now you reply with a completely different post from Toomim that is completely irrelevant so really I'm not sure why you think I'm the one who's confused.

Confused and hostile.  

[brg444]

Oh god how did I miss this #REKTING 

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

The author is Jonathan Toomim. Why are you confused?

You first linked a statement supposedly from representative of BTCC that was reported by Toomim.

I pointed out to you that these statements had been made absent of clear consideration of the SW proposal. See the twitter link I posted?

Now you reply with a completely different post from Toomim that is completely irrelevant so really I'm not sure why you think I'm the one who's confused.

Synopsis:  They dont really like SW. Nobody really likes SW. Its a pie in the sky notion at the moment, when what we really need is a working solution.

You can pick at the time sequence of events all you like, but that is the gist.

The market that you gypsies so vehemently hate is starting to speak and you don't really like what you are hearing.

Edit: Maybe they should release 50% of SegWit first. They can call it Half-Wit.