Bitcoin XT Post Mortem - Group Discussion

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

XT was a huge success in helping a proper debate blossom.  Whether it becomes widely used as a client doesn't really matter.

There has been a ongoing "proper debate" about scaling Bitcoin for the last five years.

...and in five years no scalability got accomplished.  

XT only succeeded in turning that debate into a civil war, at the cost of ~$1,000,000,000 of our market cap.

takes two sides to have a war.  couldn't have been one unless a huge number of people felt there was merit to their position.  

The market cap dropped like a rock the instant Gavin confirmed the coup had his full support.

In five years, Bitcoin has been scaled from nothing to 1MB.  You silly hyper-entitled children have no idea how hard that was, and just demand more in an 'are we at the moon yet' refrain.

A civil war can be started by one belligerent party, whether or not the other is aggressive.  (Yes, I know you Gavinistas redefined doing nothing as doing something.  )

Rhetorical flourish is fun. But what would happen if a mass of people (just say) wanted to adopt Bitcoin as a 'means of exchange'? Their welcome wagon would be crippled by transactions.

[brg444]

XT was a huge success in helping a proper debate blossom.  Whether it becomes widely used as a client doesn't really matter.

There has been a ongoing "proper debate" about scaling Bitcoin for the last five years.

...and in five years no scalability got accomplished.  

XT only succeeded in turning that debate into a civil war, at the cost of ~$1,000,000,000 of our market cap.

takes two sides to have a war.  couldn't have been one unless a huge number of people felt there was merit to their position.  

The market cap dropped like a rock the instant Gavin confirmed the coup had his full support.

In five years, Bitcoin has been scaled from nothing to 1MB.  You silly hyper-entitled children have no idea how hard that was, and just demand more in an 'are we at the moon yet' refrain.

A civil war can be started by one belligerent party, whether or not the other is aggressive.  (Yes, I know you Gavinistas redefined doing nothing as doing something.  )

Rhetorical flourish is fun. But what would happen if a mass of people (just say) wanted to adopt Bitcoin as a 'means of exchange'? Their welcome wagon would be crippled by transactions.

That wouldn't be unlike proposing a mass of people wanted to adopt gold as a "means of exchange"

[Mr Felt]

Now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is pretty much dead in the water I wanted to get opinions from the community on why exactly it died.

The main reasons I think it died was

1. The roaring egos of the devs
2. The increased ability to control the coin through centralization

XT failed because in a policy debate presumption is negative and the burden of proof belongs to the affirmative.

There was no problem for XT to solve, only a false sense of urgency and an attempted governance coup's social engineering attack.

"Because Zomg Full Blocks" and "Because BlockstreamTheymos 2 Minutes Hate" were nowhere near good enough reasons for the socioeconomic majority to give a fuck about the Gavinistas' stupid XT Manifesto, much less bother running the software.

TL:DR -  See parts in bold

I don't think the debate is over and it won't be won on inherency take-outs and presumption, not when there has been little substantive response to the analysis provided by G and M (and Peter__R, more recently). More importantly, there is a related and systemic disadvantage to the status quo ("squo") that makes XT advocacy advantageous over the status quo and the other alternatives (and notwithstanding the outcome on blocksize): the exercising of disciplinary  and biopower by certain entities and individuals to prevent the free flow of information and discourse in important public market places and spaces. Constant and relentless criticism of such exclusionary tactics, and creating inclusive discursive space, is apriori to determining a specific blocksize bip.

Consider this: recently, we have seen folks trying to participate in knowledge production about Bitcoin and the Blockchain only to have their access to the sites of said production attacked, suspended and blocked.  We have seen the rhetorical artifacts (online postings) representing important knowledge, ideas and histories eradicated simply for existing and/or being different than the status quo (kinda reminds me of what's happening Palmyra). We have seen propaganda techniques embraced whereby XT is labeled as an altcoin, its proponents mocked and compared to drunken fools. We have seen cyber attacks against XT infrastructure to physically shut-down pro-XT miners. Such an environment is repressive, violent, paranoid, anti-free market and can't possibly produce long-term solutions to the types of problems Bitcoin is ultimately trying to solve. The tactics used to censor discourse about XT exemplify dangerous disciplinary power (control of systems of knowledge) and biopower (attempts to control and manage the bitcoin population via technologies of power like forum bans (and fear of), infrastructure attacks (and fear of)) (nevermind the fact that the squo can't solve the fidelity advantage a block size increase brings in the short-term (Garzik '15), quicker action being uniquely important here given perceived competition in the space).  At best, the squo's is a world of exclusionary policing of knowledge for the purpose of preserving power relations.  At worst, its utterly corrupt and manipulating like the current global financial order.  This point has been conceded via silence and is evidenced, in part, by the recent IRC transcripts showing a calculated attempt at censorship to maintain a certain order.

All of the above reminds me of a book I read a long time ago by William Spanos called the End of Education - short synopsis here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+End+of+Education%3A+Toward+Posthumanism.-a015267978 (compare Spanos' analysis about how defining and influencing the composition of the "Core" curriculum at influential universities during the 1960s and 1970s was an act of politics with the blocksize debate climate and tactics used to influence knowledge production therein).

Consequently, XT is important because its historical record and continued existence, in any capacity, is [performative] resistance to the repression and discursive violence of the status quo. XT confronts, and thereby exposes, a dangerous form of disciplinary power and biopower. Such confrontation is and has been valuable notwithstanding whatever action is ultimately taken RE: blocksize.  Confrontation is likely not over, it is likely just beginning (contentious ideas are inevitable in any group-like situation where collaborative decision-making is involve, XT will be a blueprint for others).  Given the stakes involved, the framework for this debate was not, is not and cannot be one of technological polices related to blocksize (and certainly not when some arguments are too taboo or contentious to be had).  Instead, the framework must be one that best preserves a free market and keeps bitcoin open source.  Every act of criticism or XT advocacy helps open space and represents what Bitcoin is supposed to be about, challenging gatekeepers. Discussing XT, running and XT node, etc. - even if one is agnostic about blocksize from a tech perspective - is an act of resistance. To be clear, XT is the only alternative in the debate that can shed the shackles of the BIP and consensus decision making, which are in efficient and possibly saddled with too much bias to operate adequately. 

[jonald_fyookball]

XT was a huge success in helping a proper debate blossom.  Whether it becomes widely used as a client doesn't really matter.

There has been a ongoing "proper debate" about scaling Bitcoin for the last five years.

...and in five years no scalability got accomplished.  

XT only succeeded in turning that debate into a civil war, at the cost of ~$1,000,000,000 of our market cap.

takes two sides to have a war.  couldn't have been one unless a huge number of people felt there was merit to their position.  

The market cap dropped like a rock the instant Gavin confirmed the coup had his full support.

In five years, Bitcoin has been scaled from nothing to 1MB.  You silly hyper-entitled children have no idea how hard that was, and just demand more in an 'are we at the moon yet' refrain.

A civil war can be started by one belligerent party, whether or not the other is aggressive.  (Yes, I know you Gavinistas redefined doing nothing as doing something.  )

are you trying to influence public opinion here or do you just want to be right?
both of us want higher prices but I don't think claiming to win the debate is
going to accomplish that.

[Mr Felt]

Now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is pretty much dead in the water I wanted to get opinions from the community on why exactly it died.

The main reasons I think it died was

1. The roaring egos of the devs
2. The increased ability to control the coin through centralization

XT failed because in a policy debate presumption is negative and the burden of proof belongs to the affirmative.

There was no problem for XT to solve, only a false sense of urgency and an attempted governance coup's social engineering attack.

"Because Zomg Full Blocks" and "Because BlockstreamTheymos 2 Minutes Hate" were nowhere near good enough reasons for the socioeconomic majority to give a fuck about the Gavinistas' stupid XT Manifesto, much less bother running the software.

TL:DR -  See parts in bold

I don't think the debate is over and it won't be won on inherency take-outs and presumption, not when there has been little substantive response to the analysis provided by G and M (and Peter__R, more recently). More importantly, there is a related and systemic disadvantage to the status quo ("squo") that makes XT advocacy advantageous over the status quo and the other alternatives (and notwithstanding the outcome on blocksize): the exercising of disciplinary  and biopower by certain entities and individuals to prevent the free flow of information and discourse in important public market places and spaces. Constant and relentless criticism of such exclusionary tactics, and creating inclusive discursive space, is apriori to determining a specific blocksize bip.

Consider this: recently, we have seen folks trying to participate in knowledge production about Bitcoin and the Blockchain only to have their access to the sites of said production attacked, suspended and blocked.  We have seen the rhetorical artifacts (online postings) representing important knowledge, ideas and histories eradicated simply for existing and/or being different than the status quo (kinda reminds me of what's happening Palmyra). We have seen propaganda techniques embraced whereby XT is labeled as an altcoin, its proponents mocked and compared to drunken fools. We have seen cyber attacks against XT infrastructure to physically shut-down pro-XT miners. Such an environment is repressive, violent, paranoid, anti-free market and can't possibly produce long-term solutions to the types of problems Bitcoin is ultimately trying to solve. The tactics used to censor discourse about XT exemplify dangerous disciplinary power (control of systems of knowledge) and biopower (attempts to control and manage the bitcoin population via technologies of power like forum bans (and fear of), infrastructure attacks (and fear of)) (nevermind the fact that the squo can't solve the fidelity advantage a block size increase brings in the short-term (Garzik '15), quicker action being uniquely important here given perceived competition in the space).  At best, the squo's is a world of exclusionary policing of knowledge for the purpose of preserving power relations.  At worst, its utterly corrupt and manipulating like the current global financial order.  This point has been conceded via silence and is evidenced, in part, by the recent IRC transcripts showing a calculated attempt at censorship to maintain a certain order.

All of the above reminds me of a book I read a long time ago by William Spanos called the End of Education - short synopsis here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+End+of+Education%3A+Toward+Posthumanism.-a015267978 (compare Spanos' analysis about how defining and influencing the composition of the "Core" curriculum at influential universities during the 1960s and 1970s was an act of politics with the blocksize debate climate and tactics used to influence knowledge production therein).

Consequently, XT is important because its historical record and continued existence, in any capacity, is [performative] resistance to the repression and discursive violence of the status quo. XT confronts, and thereby exposes, a dangerous form of disciplinary power and biopower. Such confrontation is and has been valuable notwithstanding whatever action is ultimately taken RE: blocksize.  Confrontation is likely not over, it is likely just beginning (contentious ideas are inevitable in any group-like situation where collaborative decision-making is involve, XT will be a blueprint for others).  Given the stakes involved, the framework for this debate was not, is not and cannot be one of technological polices related to blocksize (and certainly not when some arguments are too taboo or contentious to be had).  Instead, the framework must be one that best preserves a free market and keeps bitcoin open source.  Every act of criticism or XT advocacy helps open space and represents what Bitcoin is supposed to be about, challenging gatekeepers. Discussing XT, running and XT node, etc. - even if one is agnostic about blocksize from a tech perspective - is an act of resistance. To be clear, XT is the only alternative in the debate that can shed the shackles of the BIP and consensus decision making, which are in efficient and possibly saddled with too much bias to operate adequately.  

[adamstgBit]

Hmm yeah i wouldnt blame the BTC drop on XT. Sure the scaredy kitties might of dumped because of unfounded fears but i don't think the big BTC owners are that weak. XT didn't gain momentum, only FUD.

If such little FUD made the price drop so much, then we were over BTC's true value for sure. There is no need to worry about BTC price dropping over FUD and it was far from a civil war. It was just a loud mouthed minority causing a lot of waves and spam.

it's not so much XT per say

it's this whole block size issue

poeple find out bitcoin is not the limitless "money of the future" they thought it was  - sell
then they find out no one is sure what to do about scalability  - sell
then they find out gavin has left the dev team, to work on XT the solution to our problems - good news? maybe buy a little
then XT is a major flop, which seems to be the act of gavin coding with e NSA pointing a gun to his head  -  sell sell sell
2 of the best devs basically  quit - sell?
then 100million ideas all kind of similar pop up, fears of bitcoin splitting in two set in - sell
bitcoin splits in two, BIP100 Vs BIP106,  silly silly - sell everything


for sure all this crap has and continues to hold price below 300, but honestly i'm surprised we are at roughly the same price as in April, which seems to indicate some kind of price floor. best way to play this IMO is to buy now speculating it will get resolved and then a bull market will finally start be sure to be holding for the longest time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG1qooBzE2w

[VirosaGITS]

Hmm yeah i wouldnt blame the BTC drop on XT. Sure the scaredy kitties might of dumped because of unfounded fears but i don't think the big BTC owners are that weak. XT didn't gain momentum, only FUD.

If such little FUD made the price drop so much, then we were over BTC's true value for sure. There is no need to worry about BTC price dropping over FUD and it was far from a civil war. It was just a loud mouthed minority causing a lot of waves and spam.

its not so much XT per say

its this whole block size issue

poeple find out bitcoin is not the limitless "money of the future" they thought it was  - sell
then they find out no one is sure what to do about scalability  - sell
then they find out gavin has left the dev team, to work on XT the solution to our problems - good news? maybe buy a little
then XT is a major flop, which seems to be the act of gavin coding with e NSA pointing a gun to his head  -  sell sell sell
2 of the best devs basically  quit - sell?
then 100million ideas all kind of similar pop up, fears of bitcoin splitting in two set in - sell
bitcoin splits into BIP100 Vs BIP106  silly silly - sell everything

But there is absolutely no reason for this to happen, only people that don't know how Bitcoin work can be worried about that. You need consensus to change and consensus is not going to happen without the Bitcoin expert agreeing with the change.

This pretty much mean. If it is not;
1-Absolutely and immediately necessary.
2-Absolutely the right thing do to.

Then There will be no fork. None, at all, zilch. People need to stop listening to FUD and drama. But obviously the people that own the hash power aren't, because how many blocks did XT solve?

Enough said?

[Mr Felt]

Hmm yeah i wouldnt blame the BTC drop on XT. Sure the scaredy kitties might of dumped because of unfounded fears but i don't think the big BTC owners are that weak. XT didn't gain momentum, only FUD.

If such little FUD made the price drop so much, then we were over BTC's true value for sure. There is no need to worry about BTC price dropping over FUD and it was far from a civil war. It was just a loud mouthed minority causing a lot of waves and spam.

its not so much XT per say

its this whole block size issue

poeple find out bitcoin is not the limitless "money of the future" they thought it was  - sell
then they find out no one is sure what to do about scalability  - sell
then they find out gavin has left the dev team, to work on XT the solution to our problems - good news? maybe buy a little
then XT is a major flop, which seems to be the act of gavin coding with e NSA pointing a gun to his head  -  sell sell sell
2 of the best devs basically  quit - sell?
then 100million ideas all kind of similar pop up, fears of bitcoin splitting in two set in - sell
bitcoin splits into BIP100 Vs BIP106  silly silly - sell everything

"[people] find out bitcoin is not the limitless 'money of the future' they thought it was" <--- What do you mean?  Don't most people think the opposite?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

He means Bitcoiners. I think.

[adamstgBit]

Hmm yeah i wouldnt blame the BTC drop on XT. Sure the scaredy kitties might of dumped because of unfounded fears but i don't think the big BTC owners are that weak. XT didn't gain momentum, only FUD.

If such little FUD made the price drop so much, then we were over BTC's true value for sure. There is no need to worry about BTC price dropping over FUD and it was far from a civil war. It was just a loud mouthed minority causing a lot of waves and spam.

its not so much XT per say

its this whole block size issue

poeple find out bitcoin is not the limitless "money of the future" they thought it was  - sell
then they find out no one is sure what to do about scalability  - sell
then they find out gavin has left the dev team, to work on XT the solution to our problems - good news? maybe buy a little
then XT is a major flop, which seems to be the act of gavin coding with e NSA pointing a gun to his head  -  sell sell sell
2 of the best devs basically  quit - sell?
then 100million ideas all kind of similar pop up, fears of bitcoin splitting in two set in - sell
bitcoin splits into BIP100 Vs BIP106  silly silly - sell everything

But there is absolutely no reason for this to happen, only people that don't know how Bitcoin work can be worried about that. You need consensus to change and consensus is not going to happen without the Bitcoin expert agreeing with the change.

This pretty much mean. If it is not;
1-Absolutely and immediately necessary.
2-Absolutely the right thing do to.

Then There will be no fork. None, at all, zilch. People need to stop listening to FUD and drama. But obviously the people that own the hash power aren't, because how many blocks did XT solve?

Enough said?

understand most people trading bitcoin (  alot of big whales too ) don't really have the bigger vision there just trading charts and sorta following current events.
point is FUD is plentiful so price is down.
if you know better you're buying

[adamstgBit]

He means Bitcoiners. I think.

no bitcoiner KNOW bitcoin is the money of the future, we understand it going to take time to work out the detials.


tarders != bitcoiners.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

He means Bitcoiners. I think.

no bitcoiner KNOW bitcoin is the money of the future, we understand it going to take time to work out the detials.


tarders != bitcoiners.

They scare me

[adamstgBit]

think about it who is crazy enough to go all in and all out with their BTC, definitely not "bitcoiners", it's mostly semi-clueless traders only here to make a buck on the market, and so the market moves based on Their perceptions

[iCEBREAKER]

Now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is pretty much dead in the water I wanted to get opinions from the community on why exactly it died.

The main reasons I think it died was

1. The roaring egos of the devs
2. The increased ability to control the coin through centralization

XT failed because in a policy debate presumption is negative and the burden of proof belongs to the affirmative.

There was no problem for XT to solve, only a false sense of urgency and an attempted governance coup's social engineering attack.

"Because Zomg Full Blocks" and "Because BlockstreamTheymos 2 Minutes Hate" were nowhere near good enough reasons for the socioeconomic majority to give a fuck about the Gavinistas' stupid XT Manifesto, much less bother running the software.

TL:DR -  See parts in bold

I don't think the debate is over and it won't be won on inherency take-outs and presumption, not when there has been little substantive response to the analysis provided by G and M (and Peter__R, more recently). More importantly, there is a related and systemic disadvantage to the status quo ("squo") that makes XT advocacy advantageous over the status quo and the other alternatives (and notwithstanding the outcome on blocksize): the exercising of disciplinary  and biopower by certain entities and individuals to prevent the free flow of information and discourse in important public market places and spaces. Constant and relentless criticism of such exclusionary tactics, and creating inclusive discursive space, is apriori to determining a specific blocksize bip.

Consider this: recently, we have seen folks trying to participate in knowledge production about Bitcoin and the Blockchain only to have their access to the sites of said production attacked, suspended and blocked.  We have seen the rhetorical artifacts (online postings) representing important knowledge, ideas and histories eradicated simply for existing and/or being different than the status quo (kinda reminds me of what's happening Palmyra). We have seen propaganda techniques embraced whereby XT is labeled as an altcoin, its proponents mocked and compared to drunken fools. We have seen cyber attacks against XT infrastructure to physically shut-down pro-XT miners. Such an environment is repressive, violent, paranoid, anti-free market and can't possibly produce long-term solutions to the types of problems Bitcoin is ultimately trying to solve. The tactics used to censor discourse about XT exemplify dangerous disciplinary power (control of systems of knowledge) and biopower (attempts to control and manage the bitcoin population via technologies of power like forum bans (and fear of), infrastructure attacks (and fear of)) (nevermind the fact that the squo can't solve the fidelity advantage a block size increase brings in the short-term (Garzik '15), quicker action being uniquely important here given perceived competition in the space).  At best, the squo's is a world of exclusionary policing of knowledge for the purpose of preserving power relations.  At worst, its utterly corrupt and manipulating like the current global financial order.  This point has been conceded via silence and is evidenced, in part, by the recent IRC transcripts showing a calculated attempt at censorship to maintain a certain order.

All of the above reminds me of a book I read a long time ago by William Spanos called the End of Education - short synopsis here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+End+of+Education%3A+Toward+Posthumanism.-a015267978 (compare Spanos' analysis about how defining and influencing the composition of the "Core" curriculum at influential universities during the 1960s and 1970s was an act of politics with the blocksize debate climate and tactics used to influence knowledge production therein).

Consequently, XT is important because its historical record and continued existence, in any capacity, is [performative] resistance to the repression and discursive violence of the status quo. XT confronts, and thereby exposes, a dangerous form of disciplinary power and biopower. Such confrontation is and has been valuable notwithstanding whatever action is ultimately taken RE: blocksize.  Confrontation is likely not over, it is likely just beginning (contentious ideas are inevitable in any group-like situation where collaborative decision-making is involve, XT will be a blueprint for others).  Given the stakes involved, the framework for this debate was not, is not and cannot be one of technological polices related to blocksize (and certainly not when some arguments are too taboo or contentious to be had).  Instead, the framework must be one that best preserves a free market and keeps bitcoin open source.  Every act of criticism or XT advocacy helps open space and represents what Bitcoin is supposed to be about, challenging gatekeepers. Discussing XT, running and XT node, etc. - even if one is agnostic about blocksize from a tech perspective - is an act of resistance. To be clear, XT is the only alternative in the debate that can shed the shackles of the BIP and consensus decision making, which are in efficient and possibly saddled with too much bias to operate adequately. 

Sure, go ahead and "challenge gatekeepers" with your TOR blacklists and awesome ~0% of network mining power.   

To the proposal of "XT?" the community overwhelmingly responded "NACK" (cite: xtnodes.com).  So regardless of your fact-free preference-tailored extreme minority opinion, the debate is over, and was won on inherency take-outs + presumption (not to mention solvency and the a priori 'FUCK HEARN AND THE CORE DEV HE RODE IN ON' deontological imperative).

"Shackles of the BIP?"

Oh right, the 1MB cap is exactly like slavery days.  Got it.  That's not offensive at all.  And neither are your first world armchair claims of resistance against censorship.  You and your exorbitantly privileged critique of theymos' moderation wouldn't last a day in China, where real censorship exists.

Could you possibly be anymore self-righteous and self-regarding, while simultaneously self-pitying?   

For very good reasons, XT got #REKT, and all the pretentious undergraduate Marxist pomo jargon in the universe won't help it be anything but a colossal failure.

[Mr Felt]

Now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is pretty much dead in the water I wanted to get opinions from the community on why exactly it died.

The main reasons I think it died was

1. The roaring egos of the devs
2. The increased ability to control the coin through centralization

XT failed because in a policy debate presumption is negative and the burden of proof belongs to the affirmative.

There was no problem for XT to solve, only a false sense of urgency and an attempted governance coup's social engineering attack.

"Because Zomg Full Blocks" and "Because BlockstreamTheymos 2 Minutes Hate" were nowhere near good enough reasons for the socioeconomic majority to give a fuck about the Gavinistas' stupid XT Manifesto, much less bother running the software.

TL:DR -  See parts in bold

I don't think the debate is over and it won't be won on inherency take-outs and presumption, not when there has been little substantive response to the analysis provided by G and M (and Peter__R, more recently). More importantly, there is a related and systemic disadvantage to the status quo ("squo") that makes XT advocacy advantageous over the status quo and the other alternatives (and notwithstanding the outcome on blocksize): the exercising of disciplinary  and biopower by certain entities and individuals to prevent the free flow of information and discourse in important public market places and spaces. Constant and relentless criticism of such exclusionary tactics, and creating inclusive discursive space, is apriori to determining a specific blocksize bip.

Consider this: recently, we have seen folks trying to participate in knowledge production about Bitcoin and the Blockchain only to have their access to the sites of said production attacked, suspended and blocked.  We have seen the rhetorical artifacts (online postings) representing important knowledge, ideas and histories eradicated simply for existing and/or being different than the status quo (kinda reminds me of what's happening Palmyra). We have seen propaganda techniques embraced whereby XT is labeled as an altcoin, its proponents mocked and compared to drunken fools. We have seen cyber attacks against XT infrastructure to physically shut-down pro-XT miners. Such an environment is repressive, violent, paranoid, anti-free market and can't possibly produce long-term solutions to the types of problems Bitcoin is ultimately trying to solve. The tactics used to censor discourse about XT exemplify dangerous disciplinary power (control of systems of knowledge) and biopower (attempts to control and manage the bitcoin population via technologies of power like forum bans (and fear of), infrastructure attacks (and fear of)) (nevermind the fact that the squo can't solve the fidelity advantage a block size increase brings in the short-term (Garzik '15), quicker action being uniquely important here given perceived competition in the space).  At best, the squo's is a world of exclusionary policing of knowledge for the purpose of preserving power relations.  At worst, its utterly corrupt and manipulating like the current global financial order.  This point has been conceded via silence and is evidenced, in part, by the recent IRC transcripts showing a calculated attempt at censorship to maintain a certain order.

All of the above reminds me of a book I read a long time ago by William Spanos called the End of Education - short synopsis here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+End+of+Education%3A+Toward+Posthumanism.-a015267978 (compare Spanos' analysis about how defining and influencing the composition of the "Core" curriculum at influential universities during the 1960s and 1970s was an act of politics with the blocksize debate climate and tactics used to influence knowledge production therein).

Consequently, XT is important because its historical record and continued existence, in any capacity, is [performative] resistance to the repression and discursive violence of the status quo. XT confronts, and thereby exposes, a dangerous form of disciplinary power and biopower. Such confrontation is and has been valuable notwithstanding whatever action is ultimately taken RE: blocksize.  Confrontation is likely not over, it is likely just beginning (contentious ideas are inevitable in any group-like situation where collaborative decision-making is involve, XT will be a blueprint for others).  Given the stakes involved, the framework for this debate was not, is not and cannot be one of technological polices related to blocksize (and certainly not when some arguments are too taboo or contentious to be had).  Instead, the framework must be one that best preserves a free market and keeps bitcoin open source.  Every act of criticism or XT advocacy helps open space and represents what Bitcoin is supposed to be about, challenging gatekeepers. Discussing XT, running and XT node, etc. - even if one is agnostic about blocksize from a tech perspective - is an act of resistance. To be clear, XT is the only alternative in the debate that can shed the shackles of the BIP and consensus decision making, which are in efficient and possibly saddled with too much bias to operate adequately.  

Sure, go ahead and "challenge gatekeepers" with your TOR blacklists and awesome ~0% of network mining power.  

To the proposal of "XT?" the community overwhelmingly responded "NACK" (cite: xtnodes.com).  So regardless of your fact-free preference-tailored extreme minority opinion, the debate is over, and was won on inherency take-outs + presumption (not to mention solvency and the a priori 'FUCK HEARN AND THE CORE DEV HE RODE IN ON' deontological imperative).

"Shackles of the BIP?"

Oh right, the 1MB cap is exactly like slavery days.  Got it.  That's not offensive at all.  And neither are your first world armchair claims of resistance against censorship.  You and your exorbitantly privileged critique of theymos' moderation wouldn't last a day in China, where real censorship exists.

Could you possibly be anymore self-righteous and self-regarding, while simultaneously self-pitying?  

For very good reasons, XT got #REKT, and all the pretentious undergraduate Marxist pomo jargon in the universe won't help it be anything but a colossal failure.

You're funny . . . and wholly non-responsive.  Edit: The community can't respond to the XT proposal when ideas and information about it can't be talked about in the main online discussion groups.

That being said, I wrote all that to be sorta funny - thought I was making a slick inside joke to a fellow policy debater (a type of debate I was involved with for a long time a long time ago) by using certain words and making certain arguments that would have been responsive way back when I was in college. Backfired, I guess.  

[jonald_fyookball]

-- nonsense--

[brg444]

Now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is pretty much dead in the water I wanted to get opinions from the community on why exactly it died.

The main reasons I think it died was

1. The roaring egos of the devs
2. The increased ability to control the coin through centralization

XT failed because in a policy debate presumption is negative and the burden of proof belongs to the affirmative.

There was no problem for XT to solve, only a false sense of urgency and an attempted governance coup's social engineering attack.

"Because Zomg Full Blocks" and "Because BlockstreamTheymos 2 Minutes Hate" were nowhere near good enough reasons for the socioeconomic majority to give a fuck about the Gavinistas' stupid XT Manifesto, much less bother running the software.

TL:DR -  See parts in bold

I don't think the debate is over and it won't be won on inherency take-outs and presumption, not when there has been little substantive response to the analysis provided by G and M (and Peter__R, more recently).

I stopped reading here  

[brg444]

-- nonsense--

Do you pride yourself in being a sheep?

[jonald_fyookball]

-- nonsense--

Do you pride yourself in being a sheep?

bigger blocks are coming. deal with it.

[brg444]

-- nonsense--

Do you pride yourself in being a sheep?

bigger blocks are coming. deal with it.

You're cute