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

[tvbcof]

XT is a temporary solution, at best. Everyone understands that. Segregated witness is a better solution in the short run, and in the long run we'll have something else (lightning network?)
So XT does not make much sense, don't think they'll be able to pull it through

XT makes a great deal of sense...if the goal is to ensure that ultimately the last vestiges of infrastructure distribution among the masses are eliminated.

Hearn said semi-famously that 'there is no difference between confiscating someone BTC and keeping them from spending it for 20 years.'  The numbers were just to be an illustration of a principle.  The reason for he '20 years' rather than 'forever' is that some segment of the infrastructure might still be independent of a central blacklisting authority.  Even now it is theoretically possible for a CPU miner to beat the datacenters full of ASIC in finding a block...it would just be really lucky and an exceedingly rare occurrence.

[johnyj]

We should have done what Core told us to do instead of the market deciding for itself?

So you are mining on a non-BU pool and promoting BU, and constantly quote Satoshi's words while at the same time say to let market decide for itself ...

As explained many times, the decision making mechanism in bitcoin community is not democracy, it is consensus. Only the super majority consensus get passed, other attempts to fork will always fade away. When no consensus can be reached, the system keeps going on at its current status

There is no BU pool yet, there is no contradiction in my position. I disagree with your theory on Bitcoin governance, consensus in the literal sense of the word is a terrible way to resolve conflicts, it does not work, especially among larger groups of people. The consensus mechanism of Bitcoin is what we call the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, it would be a mistake however to equate this with the literal meaning of the word.

I would define the governance mechanism of Bitcoin in short form like this:

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.

If the way of discussion is always trying to disagree and against, then consensus is not possible. But the good thing with bitcoin is that if you don't have consensus, you are not going anywhere

If fee/transaction indeed become a problem (which I highly doubt it will, since statistics showing that majority of users are not fee/transaction sensitive), then the corresponding consensus is going to rise, but currently there is none

The world is not lacking of cheap and fast transaction method, but it lacks one monetary system with honest money creation, that is the major advantage of bitcoin

[VeritasSapere]

We should have done what Core told us to do instead of the market deciding for itself?

So you are mining on a non-BU pool and promoting BU, and constantly quote Satoshi's words while at the same time say to let market decide for itself ...

As explained many times, the decision making mechanism in bitcoin community is not democracy, it is consensus. Only the super majority consensus get passed, other attempts to fork will always fade away. When no consensus can be reached, the system keeps going on at its current status

There is no BU pool yet, there is no contradiction in my position. I disagree with your theory on Bitcoin governance, consensus in the literal sense of the word is a terrible way to resolve conflicts, it does not work, especially among larger groups of people. The consensus mechanism of Bitcoin is what we call the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, it would be a mistake however to equate this with the literal meaning of the word.

I would define the governance mechanism of Bitcoin in short form like this:

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.

If the way of discussion is always trying to disagree and against, then consensus is not possible. But the good thing with bitcoin is that if you don't have consensus, you are not going anywhere

If fee/transaction indeed become a problem (which I highly doubt it will, since statistics showing that majority of users are not fee/transaction sensitive), then the corresponding consensus is going to rise, but currently there is none

If you think that the cost, reliability and the user experience does not influence adoption, then I think that you are fundamentally wrong. Bitcoin can be out competed, if we do not increase the blocksize that is exactly what I think would happen.

[VeritasSapere]

XT is a temporary solution, at best. Everyone understands that. Segregated witness is a better solution in the short run, and in the long run we'll have something else. (lightning network?) So XT does not make much sense, don't think they'll be able to pull it through

Moving transactions off chain is not a solution to scaling the main Bitcoin blockchain, if anything I actually think it is counterproductive over the long run. I have nothing against the lighting network and people should be free to use it if they want. However consciously applying economic policy in a top down fashion in order to arbitrarily "force" higher fees so that the only way to effectively transact in Bitcoin cheaply and quickly is through these type of third parties and off chain solutions is in my opinion wrong and antithetical to the original vision of Bitcoin.

[VeritasSapere]

XT is a temporary solution, at best. Everyone understands that. Segregated witness is a better solution in the short run, and in the long run we'll have something else (lightning network?)
So XT does not make much sense, don't think they'll be able to pull it through

XT makes a great deal of sense...if the goal is to ensure that ultimately the last vestiges of infrastructure distribution among the masses are eliminated.

Hearn said semi-famously that 'there is no difference between confiscating someone BTC and keeping them from spending it for 20 years.'  The numbers were just to be an illustration of a principle.  The reason for he '20 years' rather than 'forever' is that some segment of the infrastructure might still be independent of a central blacklisting authority.  Even now it is theoretically possible for a CPU miner to beat the datacenters full of ASIC in finding a block...it would just be really lucky and an exceedingly rare occurrence.

I suppose you are falsely attempting to equate XT with black lists and censorship here? Even though increasing the blocksize does not have any effect on mining centralization whatsoever, which therefore means it also does not have any effect on censorship resistance. It only takes one small pool operating out of any jurisdiction anywhere in the world to completely render any attempts at censoring transactions futile.

If some of the pools did start blacklisting I would simply move my mining power over to a pool that did not do this. Considering there are many independent miners like myself I do not think that this would ever become a real problem. The best thing for mining decentralization right now would actually be increased adoption, leading to an increased price. Since the real pressures on mining centralization are more related to centralization of manufacturing and economies of scale, an increased price would lead to increased competition and more people moving into the mining industry thereby further distributing the hashpower, which also increases security. Not increasing the blocksize would hurt adoption, this is in part why I think that increasing the blocksize is what is best for decentralization and financial freedom over the long run compared to the alternatives.

[johnyj]

If you think that the cost, reliability and the user experience does not influence adoption, then I think that you are fundamentally wrong. Bitcoin can be out competed, if we do not increase the blocksize that is exactly what I think would happen.

Of course the cost, reliability and user experience do not affect adoption. Many people come to bitcoin just to contribute resource, not asking for service, because this is a trustworthy monetary system. Being service minded are typically cheap mindset from entrepreneurs

The fact is that people in bitcoin community (mostly libertarian type) will never listen to someone else unless they see it with their own eyes. And even if they face a problem, they will tends to use their own solution instead of others, there are many ways to solve a problem without touch the bitcoin protocol

Here is another thread showing that this kind of discussion is just fruitless
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yyvmp/they_think_satoshi_was_wrong/

[johnyj]

XT is a temporary solution, at best. Everyone understands that. Segregated witness is a better solution in the short run, and in the long run we'll have something else (lightning network?)
So XT does not make much sense, don't think they'll be able to pull it through

XT makes a great deal of sense...if the goal is to ensure that ultimately the last vestiges of infrastructure distribution among the masses are eliminated.

Hearn said semi-famously that 'there is no difference between confiscating someone BTC and keeping them from spending it for 20 years.'  The numbers were just to be an illustration of a principle.  The reason for he '20 years' rather than 'forever' is that some segment of the infrastructure might still be independent of a central blacklisting authority.  Even now it is theoretically possible for a CPU miner to beat the datacenters full of ASIC in finding a block...it would just be really lucky and an exceedingly rare occurrence.

Similar to people not complaining when banks are closed during weekends, they will always find a way when bitcoin's blockchain transaction capacity is not enough, but they won't give up on bitcoin, just like they won't give up on gold even it has terrible transaction capability

[Lauda]

You are falsely smearing Bitcoin Unlimited. The statement you where referring to was talking about the formatting and lazy blocking. Pretty standard for a code review. The lead developer of Bitcoin Unlimited even responded to Gavin in the same thread explaining the reasoning behind this formatting, this had nothing to with there being a faulty executable.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

XT is a temporary solution, at best. Everyone understands that. Segregated witness is a better solution in the short run, and in the long run we'll have something else (lightning network?)
So XT does not make much sense, don't think they'll be able to pull it through

A lot of things need to be improved upon before we can go with much bigger blocks (e.g. the new library in 0.12 will speed up things a lot). However I do not agree with the Core developers with keeping the 1 MB limit ATM. A bump to 2 MB is definitely something that is desired.

[VeritasSapere]

If you think that the cost, reliability and the user experience does not influence adoption, then I think that you are fundamentally wrong. Bitcoin can be out competed, if we do not increase the blocksize that is exactly what I think would happen.

Of course the cost, reliability and user experience do not affect adoption. Many people come to bitcoin just to contribute resource, not asking for service, because this is a trustworthy monetary system. Being service minded are typically cheap mindset from entrepreneurs

The fact is that people in bitcoin community (mostly libertarian type) will never listen to someone else unless they see it with their own eyes. And even if they face a problem, they will tends to use their own solution instead of others, there are many ways to solve a problem without touch the bitcoin protocol

Here is another thread showing that this kind of discussion is just fruitless
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yyvmp/they_think_satoshi_was_wrong/

You are linking a censored thread where all opposing opinion is being censored, you should keep that in mind. Even quotes from Satoshi are being censored in that thread, I do not believe that such a place is productive for constructive discussion, this type of censorship is dangerous since people can become very disconnected with reality, arguments become one sided since they are not exposed to critical thinking, truth requires freedom to rise.

You are obviously coming from an engineers mindset, you are failing to see the human element in all of this. I think that most people would disagree with the statement that you made which I highlighted. I think that your basic understanding of economics is wrong. It also good to keep in mind that Bitcoin should be destined for world adoption and as such the concerns and sentiments of everyday and normal people are important, not just idealistic libertarians and engineers. Whom might have concerns that most people would certainly not prioritize. I would argue that most people would care more about being able to transact easily, cheaply and quickly using an SPV wallet on their smartphone as opposed to the ram usage of full nodes in datacentres for example.

I think that Bitcoin is intended for global adoption, which might be in conflict with the vision of some cyberpunks, idealistic engineers and libertarians. It does not help that many of these people are also Bitcoin maximalists, since then this radically different vision for Bitcoin would not need to be pushed so hard onto Bitcoin, it would make more sense for such people to turn to smaller altcoins which can go the route of security through obscurity and anonymity. As opposed to Bitcoin which I think should gain increased security through mass adoption, which also means keeping it and making it more appealing for the masses. Which most definitely does include cost, reliability and user experience.

[tvbcof]

...

Similar to people not complaining when banks are closed during weekends, they will always find a way when bitcoin's blockchain transaction capacity is not enough, but they won't give up on bitcoin, just like they won't give up on gold even it has terrible transaction capability

To me, Bitcoin is a very specialized and high-powered asset.  It is actually even more cumbersome to use that precious metals in some respects, but this is mostly and artifact of the security precautions I choose to take.  And again, I choose to do so because of the high value I place on this asset.

The various lags, costs, and inconvenience of using the system in a autonomous ways which are native to the system are, to me, part of the deal and have never bothered me excessively.  The real problems I've had are on conversion to and from the fiat system, and these are almost exclusively caused by roadblocks which are a specific feature of the fiat solutions.  XT and it's ilk are dead-set on importing these same problems into the Bitcoin system itself.  No thanks.

Only a fraction of the world's souls are inclined to treat Bitcoin as I do personally.  That is fine in my mind because there are 7,000,000,000 or so of us.  If 0.1% of us are in my category, that is still a very large pool, and one which is tipped toward the economically more 'critical' so to speak.  Importantly, anyone can use the amazing power of Bitcoin to build sub-systems which provide the 'PayPal experience' to their less rigorous brethren, but in a way which is much safer than what PayPal/VISA/etc can/does achieve.

[VeritasSapere]

...

Similar to people not complaining when banks are closed during weekends, they will always find a way when bitcoin's blockchain transaction capacity is not enough, but they won't give up on bitcoin, just like they won't give up on gold even it has terrible transaction capability

To me, Bitcoin is a very specialized and high-powered asset.  It is actually even more cumbersome to use that precious metals in some respects, but this is mostly and artifact of the security precautions I choose to take.  And again, I choose to do so because of the high value I place on this asset.

I think there is balance to be had in this perspective, I use cold storage, which is cumbersome and somewhat complex, though I also use mobile wallets for everyday spending and ease of use. Bitcoin also gains much of its value through its utility, it is exactly this utility which I think makes it a better store of value then gold. After all I can not sprinkle gold dust down the phone line and send it across the world quickly and cheaply without relying on third parties.

The various lags, costs, and inconvenience of using the system in a autonomous ways which are native to the system are, to me, part of the deal and have never bothered me excessively.  The real problems I've had are on conversion to and from the fiat system, and these are almost exclusively caused by roadblocks which are a specific feature of the fiat solutions.  XT and it's ilk are dead-set on importing these same problems into the Bitcoin system itself. No thanks.

XT is dead set on importing the same problems of the fiat system into Bitcoin itself? That is absolute bullshit, I am sorry, I thought we where past this. The only consensus critical change that is made within XT is the increase of the blocksize. We also now have Bitcoin Unlimited through which we could all just agree on a two megabyte blocksize limit for instance without relying on either Core or XT.

Only a fraction of the world's souls are inclined to treat Bitcoin as I do personally.  That is fine in my mind because there are 7,000,000,000 or so of us.  If 0.1% of us are in my category, that is still a very large pool, and one which is tipped toward the economically more 'critical' so to speak.  Importantly, anyone can use the amazing power of Bitcoin to build sub-systems which provide the 'PayPal experience' to their less rigorous brethren, but in a way which is much safer than what PayPal/VISA/etc can/does achieve.

I would want the worlds seven billion to use Bitcoin directly and become empowered through its benefits, not just the 0.1% as you say, I also do not consider this 0.1% more critical in importance for the use of Bitcoin when compared to the rest of the worlds population, I believe the opposite is true actually, we are already empowered through cryptocurrency, the rest of the world needs this more then we do. Mass adoption is also what would bring about the most profound change in our society and civilization as well.

Furthermore I would also not be satisfied with pushing these remaining seven billion onto sub-systems of Bitcoin which would provide a PayPal or Visa like experience, that is exactly my concern and it completely defeats most of the purpose behind Bitcoin in the first place.

[tl121]

Bitfury's paper here:

http://bitfury.com/content/4-white-papers-research/block-size-1.1.1.pdf

"The table contains an estimate of how many full nodes would no longer function without hard-ware upgrades as average block size is increased. These estimates are based on the assumption that many users run full nodes on consumer-grade hardware, whether on personal computers or in the
cloud. Characteristics of node hardware are based on a survey performed by Steam [19]; we assume PC gamers and Bitcoin enthusiasts have a similar amount of resources dedicated to their hardware.

The exception is RAM: we assume that a typical computer supporting a node has no less than 3 GB RAM as a node requires at least 2GB RAM to run with margin[15]. For example,if block size increases to 2 MB, a node would need to dedicate 8 GB RAM to the Bitcoin client, while more than a half of PCs
in the survey have less RAM."

Based on his estimation, raise the block size to 4MB will drop 75% of nodes from the network

The 8 GB RAM module for the computer that runs my Bitcoin Unlimited node has 8 GB of RAM.  I paid $67 for this memory module 13 months ago.  I note that Amazon is selling the same module today for $35 USD.  It is unreasonable to cripple bitcoin to support users running obsolete hardware.

Let's compare the cost for 4MB blocks:

1. You spend several hundred dollars on hardware and make a new node dedicated to bitcoin (many gaming machines do not support 16GB memory, thus you need to upgrade pretty much the whole machine), in hope of maintaining the $0.05 fee for bitcoin transactions (and it requires thousands of other nodes also do the same as you)

2. You use those several hundred dollars to pay the transaction fee (should be enough for at least one hundred transactions even the fee rose 100x to $5 per transaction)

Notice that setting up a full node does not benefit the node operator in anyway, and raise the block size will require thousands of such voluntarily setup nodes to upgrade. So I guess any rational human would refuse the node upgrade and pay the fee instead. I guess even the fee has risen to a prohibitive level, average user would still pay fee instead of setting up full nodes using dedicated hardware

I am running a node because doing so is the only way to see how bitcoin actually works. I am not running it to help the network in any way, nor somehow magically keep the fees low so I will pay less.  It could be argued as a consequence of my low upstream bandwidth I am actually "hurting" the network by virtue of downloading more that I upload ("leaching").  I do get the benefit of greater security and privacy from running the node.  Also, the same machine is running other servers, and I would probably be running it 24/7 even if I stopped running a bitcoin node.  I have some older machines that I could use for servers, but they consume enough electricity running 24/7 that the newer machine has already paid for itself.

Were I to pay exorbitant transaction fees I would be doing nothing to help the growth of bitcoin.  It would be a foolish decision, because the value of the bitcoins I hold would certainly go down.  Of course, if I were astute, I might pay one large transaction fee and dump all of my bitcoins, shut down my node, and stop wasting my time replying to trolls and sock puppets.

[jbreher]

Of course, if he has issued a further statement, I'd be happy to read it.

Incidentally: appeal to authority?

Your post is wrong. People in this discussion have become very deluded throwing fallacies around like they're candy. Naming the source of something means that I'm appealing to authority?  

Ex. 1: <<Authority>> said x, y, and z about foo. The implications of x, y, and z include a, b, and c. As you can see from this, foo has problems.

Ex. 2 <<Authority>> said foo has problems.

One of the above is an appeal to authority, the other is not. Your post was in this form of Ex. 2.

I see that you are trying to build in the mind the reader the impression that Gavin has declared that the BU codebase has resulted in a faulty executable program. Unless Gavin has issued further input to the BU review, you are mischaracterizing his statement. Nothing i have read in his comments would support that position.

You can easily see what Gavin wrote a few posts back in this thread.

Exactly. He said nothing about any flaws he might have or might have not detected in the executable program.

[jbreher]

XT is dead set on importing the same problems of the fiat system into Bitcoin itself? That is absolute bullshit, I am sorry, I thought we where past this.

Whoah. Back up the bus.

The sad reality is the XT contains a lot more than what it says on the tin. XT was sold as 'Core with a larger maxblocksize'. The reality is that XT also contains (amongst other things) the foundation of a counter-fungibility blacklisting system.

I assume this may be what tvbcof is referring to as 'same problems of the fiat system', though I may be wrong. Though I'd like to know what tvbcof is lumping in with 'and its ilk'.

I'd have been running XT for some time now, had it not been for these rotten easter eggs. Perhaps that sulfurous odor is these rotten eggs buried in the bowels of XT, rather than what you perceive as 'absolute bullshit'.

[jbreher]

Of course the cost, reliability and user experience do not affect adoption.

[VeritasSapere]

XT is dead set on importing the same problems of the fiat system into Bitcoin itself? That is absolute bullshit, I am sorry, I thought we where past this.

Whoah. Back up the bus.

The sad reality is the XT contains a lot more than what it says on the tin. XT was sold as 'Core with a larger maxblocksize'. The reality is that XT also contains (amongst other things) the foundation of a counter-fungibility blacklisting system.

I assume this may be what tvbcof is referring to as 'same problems of the fiat system', though I may be wrong. Though I'd like to know what tvbcof is lumping in with 'and its ilk'.

I'd have been running XT for some time now, had it not been for these rotten easter eggs. Perhaps that sulfurous odor is these rotten eggs buried in the bowels of XT, rather than what you perceive as 'absolute bullshit'.

I am sorry for my strong reaction, this has been a common misconception which I thought not a lot of people still prescribed to. I think that you might be mistaken about this, which I would not blame you for since a lot of people including some of the Bitcoin media did repeat this as if it was truth, however if I am wrong please correct me in what I am saying here.

All of the extra features within XT except for the blocksize are optional, since they are not consensus critical. Furthermore the "blacklisting" feature you are referring to is not a blacklisting feature at all but a DDOS prevention measure. I had explained this in more depth when it was first released, instead of looking for one of my old quotes or explaining this in more depth again I did actually stumble upon somebody else explaining it in LTB earlier today, I thought that cryptonaut explained it well.

The anti-DDOS code is not a TOR blacklist, and there is nothing being "disguised" (you know all this stuff is open source right?). The patch you are talking about simply *de-prioritizes* TOR connections *only when all connections are full and a new non-TOR connection is being attempted*. So basically, if the node has run out of connections (which is a typical sign of a DOS attack, which most commonly happens via TOR for obvious reasons), it will kick off TOR users one by one to make room for other connections. It does not add them to some sort of "blacklist" and refusing to connect to them ever again, as you are implying... go ahead and read the code for yourself. Also if you are just regularly using bitcoin over TOR, your going to be connected to several nodes anyways, so being temporarily kicked off one of those connections has absolutely no effect. This patch was added because XT nodes were actually being attacked, and this is an actual solution that helped mitigate it.

Before anyone calls me an XT shill, I am presently actively supporting BU. I did always say that I would most likely support a third alternative. Even though I might still get caught up defending XT, my interest is in defending the truth. This blacklisting accusation is not accurate regardless of what anyone might think of BIP101 or XT.

The great thing is that we do have a third alternative now, one that can even be considered a compromise in terms of the blocksize schedule. We could all agree on a two megabyte limit for example under BU, give us time to better understand its effects, and we would not need to predict technological growth. This same process could then be used to raise the limit again in a decentralized and emergent fashion. I can imagine how many critics of BIP101 should be happy with such a solution, I certainly am myself as a critic of Core. In many ways I think that Bitcoin Unlimited is transcending this debate, while providing a synthesis to many of our discussions.

[notbatman]

More of a statist shill IMO.

[forevernoob]

I thought this article was interesting in regards to the discussion we where having earlier.

http://webonanza.com/2015/10/02/did-satoshi-predict-pooled-mining-big-farms-and-asics/

You make a lot of references to Satoshi.
Like a religious nut job you speak of "Satoshi's vision".

Let me guess. He told you in a dream that he wanted XT and BU everything else you advocate?

Satoshi hasn't commented on the current blocksize debate so it's pointless to bring him into the debate.

[VeritasSapere]

I thought this article was interesting in regards to the discussion we where having earlier.

http://webonanza.com/2015/10/02/did-satoshi-predict-pooled-mining-big-farms-and-asics/

You make a lot of references to Satoshi.
Like a religious nut job you speak of "Satoshi's vision".

Let me guess. He told you in a dream that he wanted XT and BU everything else you advocate?

Satoshi hasn't commented on the current blocksize debate so it's pointless to bring him into the debate.

The debate is in part about increasing the blocksize limit. Satoshi did comment extensively about the blocksize limit and he did predict the development of pools and asics, which makes it relevant to the discussion. Having an extensive vision for Bitcoin is important when considering these questions.

[brg444]

This, gentlemen is the curtain call.

After much consideration I've decided to turn the page on this thread in light of the most recent developments but also so that it stops paying lip service to the lying fraudster above and his cohort of deception artists. (Remind me not to ever create another thread without making it self-moderated)

It is clear that we now have a path forward out of this arguable gridlock thanks to the hard work of knowledgeable but most importantly resilient people. (https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases)

Although it was never a consideration that a merry bunch of loud mouths with no authority could hijack the project and hardfork Bitcoin into inexistence the schism was of a great service to everyone involved with Bitcoin in that it help identify the malicious actors and to some extent purge them from the ecosystem.

The leaders of this governance coup are now nowhere to be seen, Mike Hearn having revealed themselves as the villain he always was is now gone working full time for the bankers he had probably always been in cahoots with. Gavin Andresen has taken residency over at a forum populated by notorious scammer cypherdoc and dangerous, sociopath, charlatan Peter R. After previously advocating for what was deemed a "safe" immediate increase to 20MB, he is now figuratively begging on his knees for 2MB "compromise" only for the sake of forcing a contentious hard fork on Bitcoin in order to undermine the trust of investors in what projects to be the most important year for Bitcoin yet.

As for the groups of shills they've spawned their "community" is in shambles largely because of the self-admitted fractious tendencies.

In what proved to be its strongest menace to date it is now safe to say Bitcoin has once again demonstrated its value and the strength of its antifragile nature.

Seeing as I can't bother responding anymore to the endless barrage of lies and deception spewed here by the shills (and I certainly understand why others have already given up) it would be a disservice to more naive & gullible individuals to leave the thread open and provide a stage for these scammers.

Nonetheless it was a good ride and proved to be a most informative experience. I'd like to thank all of the honest contributors who've helped separate the wheat from the chaff (you know who you are). A special mention for iCEBREAKER for being the originator of the #REKT movement. It was an honor to carry the torch.

To the rest of you contemptible, lying ph0rkers understand that by the grace of the internet your performances and subsequent downfall will forever be preserved for posterity and serve as a tell-tale of the consequences of going against Bitcoin.

May your souls rest in peace.

Long live Bitcoin!