Coinbase is overstepping the bounds we should give it regarding Bitcoin XT

[DiamondCardz]

We should not be allowing a private corporation to try to convince us to move over to Bitcoin XT, something which they are saying entirely for their own benefit - an increase in the amount of transactions would obviously benefit them ignoring everything else, they are for commerce. But it ignores all the other arguments against (and for it as well!) it as they are only pumping it for their own benefit. And now the Bitcoin community, especially on reddit, has descending into circlejerking against theymos and as an implication of this are now circlejerking all over Bitcoin XT and supporting Coinbase here. We have given a private corporation too much power.

Not to mention that the discussion of Bitcoin XT wasn't even banned, Coinbase overstepping these bounds and pumping Bitcoin XT was. Jesus, guys.

[1715138315]

1715138315

[1715138315]

1715138315

[1715138315]

1715138315

[IIOII]

The problem is that moderation is announced but not enforced subsequently. So (especially r/Bitcoin) has been flooded with XTcoin trolls that destroy any Bitcoin discussion.

Known XT/Coinbase shills should be banned ASAP here and on r/Bitcoin.

[knight22]

They are not alone http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

For those who do not spend time on reddit here is a link to theymos' post in which he mentioned possibility of a Coinbase ban on /r/bitcoin and restriction to altcoin board on this forum.

[onemorexmr]

We should not be allowing a private corporation to try to convince us to move over to Bitcoin XT, something which they are saying entirely for their own benefit - an increase in the amount of transactions would obviously benefit them ignoring everything else, they are for commerce. But it ignores all the other arguments against (and for it as well!) it as they are only pumping it for their own benefit. And now the Bitcoin community, especially on reddit, has descending into circlejerking against theymos and as an implication of this are now circlejerking all over Bitcoin XT and supporting Coinbase here. We have given a private corporation too much power.

Not to mention that the discussion of Bitcoin XT wasn't even banned, Coinbase overstepping these bounds and pumping Bitcoin XT was. Jesus, guys.

what do you expect?
companies are obligated to do anything for their financial interest. they are not a charity. otherweise their investors can sue them... (not talking about xt in this paragraph; just as a general rule)

on the other hand anybody should always be aware that when a company speaks they are primarly speaking for themselves. so i dont think coinbase saying they want XT is something bad for the community.

disclaimer: i'd like to see bigger blocks too. not neceassarily XT.
edit: never used coinbase and i think they are not very trustworthy. have seen way to many negatives stories here about them

[Lauda]

I have had it with Coinbase. They are already on my blacklist. If anyone from Coinbase is reading (and I'm sure you are), I will never use your service again and I shall forbid any close contact to do so either. Do you want to ruin your business? Because this is how it starts. Coinbase has lose all credibility from now on and whatever their CEO says should be disregarded.

They are not alone http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

You and this "industry" can start your own coin and get out of here.

ban on this forum.

No. It would be moved to the altcoin section.

Incoming XT shills; you should have self-moderated this one.

They are way past the point of "WTF are you even doing". At first they used a consensus re-implementation (Bitcoin-Ruby) that, surprise surprise, broke consensus with Bitcoin. So, they thought, hey, let's write yet another consensus re-implementation and ignore what the person who broke the last one wrote.
There also is this, where coinbase first learns on IRC that zero conf transactions don't have protection from double-spends. Maybe they recruit from Reddit.
I honestly think there is a good chance they are the next mtgox, I may be wrong, but I will never store funds there.

Downvoted on reddit. What a surprise. 

[IIOII]

For example knight22 is such a troll (can't see what he is posting due to my ignore list, but it's certainly pro XTcoin). Letting these trolls proceed spreading their lies and propaganda is not positive for the Bitcoin community.

After all, XTcoiners have their own forum, yet they come over to Bitcoin to advertise and complain.

Theymos, please enforce bans!

[knight22]

I have had it with Coinbase. They are already on my blacklist. If anyone from Coinbase is reading (and I'm sure you are), I will never use your service again and I shall forbid any close contact to do so either. Do you want to ruin your business? Because this is how it starts. Coinbase has lose all credibility from now on and whatever their CEO says should be disregarded.

They are not alone http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

You and this "industry" can start your own coin and get out of here.

ban on this forum.

No. It would be moved to the altcoin section.

Incoming XT shills; you should have self-moderated this one.

They are way past the point of "WTF are you even doing". At first they used a consensus re-implementation (Bitcoin-Ruby) that, surprise surprise, broke consensus with Bitcoin. So, they thought, hey, let's write yet another consensus re-implementation and ignore what the person who broke the last one wrote.
There also is this, where coinbase first learns on IRC that zero conf transactions don't have protection from double-spends. Maybe they recruit from Reddit.
I honestly think there is a good chance they are the next mtgox, I may be wrong, but I will never store funds there.

Downvoted on reddit. What a surprise. 

I wonder what bitcoin Core will become when all the industry will move over. I don't expect it to get beyond this forum ever and probably turns to be an altcoin itself.

[DiamondCardz]

They are not alone http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

BitPay is also a commerce processor, they are essentially equivalent to Coinbase. I don't even know why Blockchain is there and why they are relevant. Based on BitPay's signature being first I'd gamble they wrote the letter.

I have had it with Coinbase. They are already on my blacklist. If anyone from Coinbase is reading (and I'm sure you are), I will never use your service again and I shall forbid any close contact to do so either. Do you want to ruin your business? Because this is how it starts. Coinbase has lose all credibility from now on and whatever their CEO says should be disregarded.

I don't plan to use them anymore where I can avoid it. This is how you fuck up Bitcoin, by starting to get involved in major development issues as if you're a company lobbying the US government. We don't want that shit, that's centralisation.

[knight22]

They are not alone http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

BitPay is also a commerce processor, they are essentially equivalent to Coinbase. I don't even know why Blockchain is there and why they are relevant. Based on BitPay's signature being first I'd gamble they wrote the letter.

I have had it with Coinbase. They are already on my blacklist. If anyone from Coinbase is reading (and I'm sure you are), I will never use your service again and I shall forbid any close contact to do so either. Do you want to ruin your business? Because this is how it starts. Coinbase has lose all credibility from now on and whatever their CEO says should be disregarded.

I don't plan to use them anymore where I can avoid it. This is how you fuck up Bitcoin, by starting to get involved in major development issues as if you're a company lobbying the US government. We don't want that shit, that's centralisation.

Core is under centralized development. Decentralization = freedom of choice. Stop being such an hypocrite.

[DiamondCardz]

Unfortunately, we're getting kind of fucked here if all of the large companies are going to start running code for Bitcoin XT and trying to move us all away from Bitcoin Core. For the average Bitcoiner stuff like that is going to cause a problem with freedom of choice.

[knight22]

Unfortunately, we're getting kind of fucked here if all of the large companies are going to start running code for Bitcoin XT and trying to move us all away from Bitcoin Core. For the average Bitcoiner stuff like that is going to cause a problem with freedom of choice.

You'll still be free to run and use bitcoin Core. No one is forcing you to switch.

[Lauda]

You'll still be free to run and use bitcoin Core. No one is forcing you to switch.

Yet you guys are trying to force over control to XT by various schemes and this one being manipulation by using another company. God knows what Hearn promised the CEO of Coinbase.

Core is under centralized development. Decentralization = freedom of choice. Stop being such an hypocrite.

Wrong analogy. We're talking about decentralization as in nodes, not decentralization of development.

Letting these trolls proceed spreading their lies and propaganda is not positive for the Bitcoin community. After all, XTcoiners have their own forum, yet they come over to Bitcoin to advertise and complain.
Theymos, please enforce bans!

They certainly are testing the limits.

[knight22]

You'll still be free to run and use bitcoin Core. No one is forcing you to switch.

Yet you guys are trying to force over control to XT by various schemes and this one being manipulation by using another company. God knows what Hearn promised the CEO of Coinbase.

Companies will use the tool that best fit their needs and right now they need more capacity so Core does not correspond to their needs anymore. That's the reality no matter how mad you get about it. And no, they are not willing to wait forever because there is money at stack. Plain and simple.

Core is under centralized development. Decentralization = freedom of choice. Stop being such an hypocrite.

Wrong analogy. We're talking about decentralization as in nodes, not decentralization of development.

Both are equally important.

[DiamondCardz]

At the end of the day it should be the general public who make this decision, not a few companies who want to force it onto all of us. I'm extremely disappointed in Coinbase for trying to push it this hard and also in BitPay and Blockchain for trying to push it. It is not their decision to make, and unfortunately if a bunch of big Bitcoin companies move over to XT we won't have a choice anymore.

And then we're no longer Bitcoin, we've changed into Bitcoin XT. Bitcoin is effectively dead if we have been forced to change to XT, the dream is gone. We need a change that everyone agrees with that is simply made through consensus.

[knight22]

At the end of the day it should be the general public who make this decision, not a few companies who want to force it onto all of us. I'm extremely disappointed in Coinbase for trying to push it this hard and also in BitPay and Blockchain for trying to push it. It is not their decision to make, and unfortunately if a bunch of big Bitcoin companies move over to XT we won't have a choice anymore.

And then we're no longer Bitcoin, we've changed into Bitcoin XT. Bitcoin is effectively dead if we have been forced to change to XT, the dream is gone. We need a change that everyone agrees with that is simply made through consensus.

Fist off, we wouldn't be in this situation if Core would have come up with a compromise that satisfy everybody faster than this. It is still not too late thought.

You know Satoshi himself envisioned such a path XT is going?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

[CIYAM]

You know Satoshi himself envisioned such a path XT is going?

Stop with the nonsense.

You are known to be an XT shill and have no authority to offer any opinion of any value to this forum.

Why don't you just move to the bitcoin.com forum and fork off?

[brg444]

You'll still be free to run and use bitcoin Core. No one is forcing you to switch.

Yet you guys are trying to force over control to XT by various schemes and this one being manipulation by using another company. God knows what Hearn promised the CEO of Coinbase.

Companies will use the tool that best fit their needs and right now they need more capacity so CoreBitcoin does not correspond to their needs anymore. That's the reality no matter how mad you get about it. And no, they are not willing to wait forever because there is money at stack. Plain and simple.

By all means do fork off to your alt coins. I expect it will be quite some comedy.

Their money is a pile of worthless fiat. It carries no weight in the Bitcoin world.

[knight22]

You know Satoshi himself envisioned such a path XT is going?

Stop with the nonsense.

You are known to be an XT shill and have no authority to offer any opinion of any value to this forum.

Why don't you just move to the bitcoin.com forum and fork off?

What nonesens? I provided the exact quote he made on that matter.

Of course we ALL agree it would be great to be able to run a full node with the complete blockchain on a Nokia phone but that solution didn't arrive and now it is simply time to move forward according to the more realistic path envisioned by Satoshi.

[brg444]

You know Satoshi himself envisioned such a path XT is going?

Stop with the nonsense.

You are known to be an XT shill and have no authority to offer any opinion of any value to this forum.

Why don't you just move to the bitcoin.com forum and fork off?

What nonesens? I provided the exact quote he made on that matter.

Of course we ALL agree it would be great to be able to run a full node with the complete blockchain on a Nokia phone but that solution didn't arrive and now it is simply time to move forward according to the more realistic path envisioned by Satoshi.

Satoshi's plan is incompatible with current implementation of Bitcoin.

[DiamondCardz]

Satoshi did envision that an increase in the block size would eventually be likely. He did not envision that it would be pseudo-forced by the large businesses in the Bitcoin ecosystem and that it would not be done by major consensus. It goes against the ideals of what Bitcoin was created for.

[Denker]

Why again and always these XT and BIP 101 topic?
Hearn is a sneaky bastard.I guess the majority of the forum here knows that. And as far as I know the companies are not just open for BIP101.
I'm myself wanna have a decentralized Bitcoin with as much nodes as possible however I also wanna see an increase in Blocksize.There has to be a healthy balance between these two things.But I do not see this happening with BIP101 and XT. Everyone supporting this will help to change Bitcoin into a centralized network and therefore give it into the hands of regulators, banks. I think it's not necessary to mention what will happen then to Bitcoin.Game over!

[CIYAM]

Of course we ALL agree it would be great to be able to run a full node with the complete blockchain on a Nokia phone but that solution didn't arrive and now it is simply time to move forward according to the more realistic path envisioned by Satoshi.

Satoshi's vision did not include Coinbase's CEO nor blacklists and all the other shit that is trying to be introduced by XT.

Theymos is correct in banning XT as it will destroy Bitcoin if it ever succeeds.

And it won't succeed as people like me are going to keep attacking you until you lose (this forum is no friend of mine as @theymos deleted his trust to me and BadBear won't remove the negative trust he gave me that makes me look like a scammer but still I will keep up this fight).

[knight22]

You do realize there is also no consensus for the status quo? Right now where are experiencimg the economic pressure for increased capacity. That pressure will just keep building up until it cracks or a consensus is finally reach. It is unfortunate that Core is willing to let it crack.

[CIYAM]

You do realize there is also no consensus for the status quo? Right now where are experiencimg the economic pressure for increased capacity. That pressure will just keep building up until it cracks or a consensus is finally reach. It is unfortunate that Core is willing to let it crack.

That is just rubbish - as I've pointed out many times before only spam attacks have made blocks full.

You guys just keep on repeating nonsense to try and fool people - but those that are smart *are not fooled*.

It is pretty clear to me that you are being paid to shill - I hope your conscience is happy with the role that you are playing in this.

[knight22]

And it won't succeed as people like me are going to keep attacking you until you lose (this forum is no friend of mine as @theymos deleted his trust to me and BadBear won't remove the negative trust he gave me that makes me look like a scammer but still I will keep up this fight).

What a nice person you are.

[brg444]

You do realize there is also no consensus for the status quo? Right now where are experiencimg the economic pressure for increased capacity. That pressure will just keep building up until it cracks or a consensus is finally reach. It is unfortunate that Core is willing to let it crack.

By definition existence of the status quo entails that this is where consensus lays.

[CIYAM]

What a nice person you are.

Well at least I'm not a shill (and I knew you'd finally resort to this kind of personal attack).

[CIYAM]

By definition existence of the status quo entails that this is where consensus lays.

A voice of sanity!

[CIYAM]

The approach of Coinbase is that of a bully.

I am not going to let that go unnoticed.

[knight22]

By definition existence of the status quo entails that this is where consensus lays.

A voice of sanity!

Well the poeple moving away disagree. Deal with it.

[CIYAM]

Well the poeple moving away disagree. Deal with it.

Again - why not just "fork now" if you really have the support?

Answer: You don't and you won't - so you just keep on posting in the hope that it will happen - but *it won't*.

You guys probably didn't expect people like me to "stand up against you" but now you are seeing that you are fighting a losing battle - so "deal with that".

[brg444]

By definition existence of the status quo entails that this is where consensus lays.

A voice of sanity!

Well the poeple moving away disagree. Deal with it.

We actually welcome corporatist shills and banking parasites moving away from Bitcoin. It's been long due anyway. Fork off!

[mexxer-2]

By definition existence of the status quo entails that this is where consensus lays.

A voice of sanity!

Well the poeple moving away disagree. Deal with it.

Oh just go over to your stupid bitcoin forum and shill"advertise" your bullshit"ideas" there. You're just making it a big deal out of nothing, bitcointalk is a private forum, it has its own rules, deal with it.

[DiamondCardz]

So what happens when Coinbase, BitPay and Blockchain try to get us to move to XT?

a) We move and state that we are fine with the big companies pushing us around, and the dream of Bitcoin being a decentralized currency where the decisions are made mainly by the users is dead.

b) Consensus for BIP101 fails and Coinbase, BitPay and Blockchain are left failing. The Bitcoin price will crash if something as dramatic as this happens.

These companies are leading us down a rocky road for their own personal gain.

[CIYAM]

I've started a topic to rail against this crap: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1240437.0

[knight22]

Well the poeple moving away disagree. Deal with it.

Again - why not just "fork now" if you really have the support?

Answer: You don't and you won't - so you just keep on posting in the hope that it will happen - but *it won't*.

You guys probably didn't expect people like me to "stand up against you" but now you are seeing that you are fighting a losing battle - so "deal with that".

So you want to force poeple down your path? What a nice person you are. But no, poeple won't use bitcoin as is if it doesn't fit their needs. I am not sure why it makes you mad.

[CIYAM]

So you want to force poeple down your path? What a nice person you are. But no, poeple won't use bitcoin as is if it doesn't fit their needs. I am not sure why it makes you mad.

It is only you that are supporting "forcing people down a path".

I don't care whether block sizes get bigger or not as long as it is agreed by the miners.

[knight22]

So you want to force poeple down your path? What a nice person you are. But no, poeple won't use bitcoin as is if it doesn't fit their needs. I am not sure why it makes you mad.

It is only you that are supporting "forcing people down a path".

I don't care whether block sizes get bigger or not as long as it is agreed by the miners.

Peolpe freely moving away are not forcing you anything. I am not sure why you feel that way.

[CIYAM]

Peolpe freely moving away are not forcing you anything. I am not sure why you feel that way.

People (which apparently you can't spell) will move away without requiring your shilling.

[DiamondCardz]

So you want to force poeple down your path? What a nice person you are. But no, poeple won't use bitcoin as is if it doesn't fit their needs. I am not sure why it makes you mad.

It is only you that are supporting "forcing people down a path".

I don't care whether block sizes get bigger or not as long as it is agreed by the miners.

Peolpe freely moving away are not forcing you anything. I am not sure why you feel that way.

But the only "people" freely moving away are the large companies like Coinbase who are trying to effectively force the masses to move over by giving them no other option. I disagree with XT and these kinds of things, I don't disagree with BIP101 and consensus for it leading to a change.

[knight22]

Peolpe freely moving away are not forcing you anything. I am not sure why you feel that way.

People (which apparently you can't spell) will move away without requiring your shilling.

Yeah sure, but don't you want to be informed of the situation so you can make the right decision when that happen? You and everybody here.

[CIYAM]

I don't disagree with BIP101 and consensus for it leading to a change.

Neither do I and BIP101 has little support.

[CIYAM]

Yeah sure, but don't you want to be informed of the situation so you can make the right decision when that happen? You and everybody here.

What exactly do you think I am not "informed about" - the hostile takeover attempt or something else?

[HSBC Banking]

We do need to increase the block size if bitcoin is to be used widely and as money remittance tool. 1MB will not be enough later next year. How many people support BIP100?

[CIYAM]

We do need to increase the block size if bitcoin is to be used widely and as money remittance tool. 1MB will not be enough later next year. How many people support BIP100?

You base this upon what analysis?

The blocks are not nearing 1MB apart from spam attacks (probably organised by those trying to push for bigger blocks).

Bitcoin has *failed* to make any impact on the remittance market whatsoever (despite that being the #1 thing it should be doing) and you can't blame that on the block size.

Perhaps you could do some actual research before you post nonsense?

[knight22]

Yeah sure, but don't you want to be informed of the situation so you can make the right decision when that happen? You and everybody here.

What exactly do you think I am not "informed about" - the hostile takeover attempt or something else?

Again, I fail to see the hostility behind people freely moving away. If there is hostility then it is coming from you.

And it won't succeed as people like me are going to keep attacking you until you lose (this forum is no friend of mine as @theymos deleted his trust to me and BadBear won't remove the negative trust he gave me that makes me look like a scammer but still I will keep up this fight).

[DiamondCardz]

There's a reddit post linking to this thread so we can have some further analysis on reddit as well as some more opinions.

-edit-: it was downvoted into oblivion.

I'm interested to see how reddit will respond though as it seems there's been a lot of circlejerking there on /r/bitcoin with anti-theymos things leading to heavy pro-XT feelings. That's not how discourse should go and it's leading to Coinbase having way too much power.

[CIYAM]

Again, I fail to see the hostility behind people freely moving away. If there is hostility then it is coming from you.

Then why the constant posting by you (as a shill) about this?

If people freely wanted to move away then they wouldn't need you to push them would they?

[knight22]

Again, I fail to see the hostility behind people freely moving away. If there is hostility then it is coming from you.

Then why the constant posting by you (as a shill) about this?

If people freely wanted to move away then they wouldn't need you to push them would they?

I consider lengthily debate as a good thing but at some point it has to come to an end. Some businesses have put december as a deadline and all the people that want to move away are waiting for that deadline to move at the same time which is natural.

The situation is now this, some people considered the status quo as a consensus and firmly sit on it. while in fact, it is not. Now those on want to move are about to make a move because the other side is taking advantage of the status quo and are unwilling to give an inch, in a timely matter. Ignoring the "time" variable is where you people failed at reaching a consensus. There is still a month remaining though so the ball is in your camp.

[CIYAM]

The situation is now this, some people considered the status quo as a consensus and firmly sit on it. while in fact, it is not. Now those on want to move are about to make a move because the other side is taking advantage of the status quo and are unwilling to give an inch, in a timely matter. Ignoring the "time" variable is where you people failed at reaching a consensus. There is still a month remaining though so the ball is in your camp.

You know what is the funniest thing - you don't have any Chinese exchange on your side.

The Chinese are actually smarter than Americans and they know exactly how to screw Americans which is why they don't take your side.

They are going to wait and see and then "fuck you up".

(Americans seem to forget that they can't threaten China at all)

Personally I am looking forward to December to see that you guys will fail and then will re-announce you are going to try the same shit next year (and you'll fail then also).

[knight22]

The situation is now this, some people considered the status quo as a consensus and firmly sit on it. while in fact, it is not. Now those on want to move are about to make a move because the other side is taking advantage of the status quo and are unwilling to give an inch, in a timely matter. Ignoring the "time" variable is where you people failed at reaching a consensus. There is still a month remaining though so the ball is in your camp.

You know what is the funniest thing - you don't have any Chinese exchange on your side.

The Chinese are actually smarter than Americans and they know exactly how to screw Americans which is why they don't take your side.

They are going to wait and see and then "fuck you up".

Hashrate will follow where the money is. I am not worried about that.

[CIYAM]

Hashrate will follow where the money is. I am not worried about that.

You don't seem to understand - China is where the money is (am guessing you must be American as only Americans would make such stupid statements).

[knight22]

Hashrate will follow where the money is. I am not worried about that.

You don't seem to understand - China is where the money is (am guessing you must be American as only Americans would make such stupid statements).

If china doesn't follow (which I would be surprised) there will be new pools and fresh new hashrate to get that money. So no, it does not worry me.

[CIYAM]

If china doesn't follow (which I would be surprised) there will be new pools and fresh new hashrate to get that money. So no, it does not worry me.

So you have shown you don't get it at all - China *leads* and *you follow*.

If you don't follow then you simply "fork off".

Funnily enough China is not the country trying to introduce a corporate takeover of Bitcoin and introduce blacklists, etc. only the US is trying to do that (it seems that China actually *gets* Bitcoin but the US does not).

[brg444]

Again, I fail to see the hostility behind people freely moving away. If there is hostility then it is coming from you.

Then why the constant posting by you (as a shill) about this?

If people freely wanted to move away then they wouldn't need you to push them would they?

I consider lengthily debate as a good thing but at some point it has to come to an end. Some businesses have put december as a deadline and all the people that want to move away are waiting for that deadline to move at the same time which is natural.

The situation is now this, some people considered the status quo as a consensus and firmly sit on it. while in fact, it is not. Now those on want to move are about to make a move because the other side is taking advantage of the status quo and are unwilling to give an inch, in a timely matter. Ignoring the "time" variable is where you people failed at reaching a consensus. There is still a month remaining though so the ball is in your camp.

We don't wanna play bals with you shills.

I'm afraid December will come and you parasites will hang around without ever admitting your crushing defeat

[knight22]

Again, I fail to see the hostility behind people freely moving away. If there is hostility then it is coming from you.

Then why the constant posting by you (as a shill) about this?

If people freely wanted to move away then they wouldn't need you to push them would they?

I consider lengthily debate as a good thing but at some point it has to come to an end. Some businesses have put december as a deadline and all the people that want to move away are waiting for that deadline to move at the same time which is natural.

The situation is now this, some people considered the status quo as a consensus and firmly sit on it. while in fact, it is not. Now those on want to move are about to make a move because the other side is taking advantage of the status quo and are unwilling to give an inch, in a timely matter. Ignoring the "time" variable is where you people failed at reaching a consensus. There is still a month remaining though so the ball is in your camp.

We don't wanna play bals with you shills.

I'm afraid December will come and you parasites will hang around without ever admitting your crushing defeat

One thing is for sure, you won't succeed at forcing your useless small blocks on the market.

[CIYAM]

One thing is for sure, you won't succeed at forcing your useless small blocks on the market.

The small blocks are the "current thing" so they are not something that is to be "forced upon anyone" (they are the current situation).

This is typical "double-speak" from a shill (if you don't want to be so obvious a shill then improve your attacks).

[DiamondCardz]

Again, I fail to see the hostility behind people freely moving away. If there is hostility then it is coming from you.

Then why the constant posting by you (as a shill) about this?

If people freely wanted to move away then they wouldn't need you to push them would they?

I consider lengthily debate as a good thing but at some point it has to come to an end. Some businesses have put december as a deadline and all the people that want to move away are waiting for that deadline to move at the same time which is natural.

The situation is now this, some people considered the status quo as a consensus and firmly sit on it. while in fact, it is not. Now those on want to move are about to make a move because the other side is taking advantage of the status quo and are unwilling to give an inch, in a timely matter. Ignoring the "time" variable is where you people failed at reaching a consensus. There is still a month remaining though so the ball is in your camp.

We don't wanna play bals with you shills.

I'm afraid December will come and you parasites will hang around without ever admitting your crushing defeat

One thing is for sure, you won't succeed at forcing your useless small blocks on the market.

They haven't been forced on anyone. The fact is, there is currently consensus for 1MB blocks. There is not yet consensus in the wider community for BIP101. The fact that Coinbase is trying to force XT and BIP101 on everyone is grossly out of place.

[CIYAM]

They haven't been forced on anyone. The fact is, there is currently consensus for 1MB blocks. There is not yet consensus in the wider community for BIP101. The fact that Coinbase is trying to force XT and BIP101 on everyone is grossly out of place.

Yes - everyone who has a brain "knows" this but the shills keep trying to push this as they hoping that somehow the ignorant masses might get behind them.

[knight22]

Again, I fail to see the hostility behind people freely moving away. If there is hostility then it is coming from you.

Then why the constant posting by you (as a shill) about this?

If people freely wanted to move away then they wouldn't need you to push them would they?

I consider lengthily debate as a good thing but at some point it has to come to an end. Some businesses have put december as a deadline and all the people that want to move away are waiting for that deadline to move at the same time which is natural.

The situation is now this, some people considered the status quo as a consensus and firmly sit on it. while in fact, it is not. Now those on want to move are about to make a move because the other side is taking advantage of the status quo and are unwilling to give an inch, in a timely matter. Ignoring the "time" variable is where you people failed at reaching a consensus. There is still a month remaining though so the ball is in your camp.

We don't wanna play bals with you shills.

I'm afraid December will come and you parasites will hang around without ever admitting your crushing defeat

One thing is for sure, you won't succeed at forcing your useless small blocks on the market.

They haven't been forced on anyone. The fact is, there is currently consensus for 1MB blocks. There is not yet consensus in the wider community for BIP101. The fact that Coinbase is trying to force XT and BIP101 on everyone is grossly out of place.

This is where you are wrong and why all this mess is happening.

[CIYAM]

This is where you are wrong and why all this mess is happening.

Proof please?

[DiamondCardz]

There is general consensus amongst nodes and miners. The fact that some companies are trying to force us to move over to BIP101 does not mean that there is general consensus, only that those and a few others are trying to force us to give consensus to it.

[HostFat]

How can Coinbase force someone to do anything is still to be explained lol

The same FUD all over again.

[brg444]

Again, I fail to see the hostility behind people freely moving away. If there is hostility then it is coming from you.

Then why the constant posting by you (as a shill) about this?

If people freely wanted to move away then they wouldn't need you to push them would they?

I consider lengthily debate as a good thing but at some point it has to come to an end. Some businesses have put december as a deadline and all the people that want to move away are waiting for that deadline to move at the same time which is natural.

The situation is now this, some people considered the status quo as a consensus and firmly sit on it. while in fact, it is not. Now those on want to move are about to make a move because the other side is taking advantage of the status quo and are unwilling to give an inch, in a timely matter. Ignoring the "time" variable is where you people failed at reaching a consensus. There is still a month remaining though so the ball is in your camp.

We don't wanna play bals with you shills.

I'm afraid December will come and you parasites will hang around without ever admitting your crushing defeat

One thing is for sure, you won't succeed at forcing your useless small blocks on the market.

They haven't been forced on anyone. The fact is, there is currently consensus for 1MB blocks. There is not yet consensus in the wider community for BIP101. The fact that Coinbase is trying to force XT and BIP101 on everyone is grossly out of place.

This is where you are wrong and why all this mess is happening.

Do we really have to spell out the difference between consensus and unanimity to you?

[CIYAM]

There is general consensus amongst nodes and miners. The fact that some companies are trying to force us to move over to BIP101 does not mean that there is general consensus, only that those and a few others are trying to force us to give consensus to it.

Exactly - there is no widespread support for BIP101 as has been proved by the blockchain.

[brg444]

How can Coinbase force someone to do anything is still to be explained lol

Well being a centralized service and all they can certainly force a lot of things on their users

[knight22]

Again, I fail to see the hostility behind people freely moving away. If there is hostility then it is coming from you.

Then why the constant posting by you (as a shill) about this?

If people freely wanted to move away then they wouldn't need you to push them would they?

I consider lengthily debate as a good thing but at some point it has to come to an end. Some businesses have put december as a deadline and all the people that want to move away are waiting for that deadline to move at the same time which is natural.

The situation is now this, some people considered the status quo as a consensus and firmly sit on it. while in fact, it is not. Now those on want to move are about to make a move because the other side is taking advantage of the status quo and are unwilling to give an inch, in a timely matter. Ignoring the "time" variable is where you people failed at reaching a consensus. There is still a month remaining though so the ball is in your camp.

We don't wanna play bals with you shills.

I'm afraid December will come and you parasites will hang around without ever admitting your crushing defeat

One thing is for sure, you won't succeed at forcing your useless small blocks on the market.

They haven't been forced on anyone. The fact is, there is currently consensus for 1MB blocks. There is not yet consensus in the wider community for BIP101. The fact that Coinbase is trying to force XT and BIP101 on everyone is grossly out of place.

This is where you are wrong and why all this mess is happening.

Do we really have to spell out the difference between consensus and unanimity to you?

I am pretty sure you get what I mean as an intelligent person.

[HostFat]

Well being a centralized service and all they can certainly force a lot of things on their users

What? Nothing. None is forced to use their services.

Same bullshit, again.

There is only one thing that it seems that all Bitcoin users are forced to: use the Bitcoin Core client

[DiamondCardz]

Well being a centralized service and all they can certainly force a lot of things on their users

What? Nothing. None is forced to use their services.

Same bullshit, again.

There is only one thing that it seems that all Bitcoin users are forced to: use the Bitcoin Core client

No, no-one is. But if Microsoft, Apple and all the other for-profit operating system makers wanted to push the same change to their clients, it'd likely be very successful, correct? Sure, some people would change to something like Linux, but generally the change would be pushed to much more than 75% of computer users. A forced consensus.

Here, we have things such as Coinbase and BitPay and Blockchain. 2 are payment processors, 2 also are wallets. If they forcefully change over to XT/BIP101 we may have large issues.

No-one is actually forced to use Bitcoin Core, in all fairness, and consensus exists for BIP100.

[HostFat]

You are confusing these companies with "the market"

"Will the users want to spend less money on fees and have faster confirmations?"
It doesn't need that a company gives advise to have already the answer to this question. It has an obvious demand, so be prepared.

"Do you want to give miners the power to choose whenever they want to extend or shorten the block size at will?" (BIP100)
This for me smells of insecurity and unpredictability, again I don't see how this can be seen as a solution from the majority of the users/market.
It won't be.

I don't know if it will be the BIP101, but you can all be sure that there will be an increase of the blocksize AND miners will not get any vote power.

There is only one direction, whatever some companies can say.

[meono]

Well being a centralized service and all they can certainly force a lot of things on their users

What? Nothing. None is forced to use their services.

Same bullshit, again.

There is only one thing that it seems that all Bitcoin users are forced to: use the Bitcoin Core client

BINGO!

[P-Funk]

BIP 101 is a laughably stupid and irresponsible proposal. An exponential block size limit increase is a bad idea built on pie-in-the-sky expectations. Bitcoin is not going to handle the world's transactions. The block target of 10 minutes makes sure of that. XT is BIP 101 plus handing the keys to the client to an arrogant fuck. If you still support XT you should really consider what it would mean if it was successful.

[steeev]

knight 22 and meono are certainly earning their wages recently - relentless pushiness about... 'freedom of choice'

bizarre...

we're all free to do as they say, it seems...

well, i'm not going over to XT, and am now bored with their noise.

coinbase ?

whatever...

[DiamondCardz]

but you can all be sure that there will be an increase of the blocksize

Eventually, of course. I agree that will eventually have to happen. But this is not the way if we wish to stay the way Bitcoin was intended.

knight 22 and meono are certainly earning their wages recently - relentless pushiness about... 'freedom of choice'

bizarre...

we're all free to do as they say, it seems...

well, i'm not going over to XT, and am now bored with their noise.

coinbase ?

whatever...

Indeed, I am remaining with Bitcoin Core. I am not going to support Coinbase with what they are doing.

[Arcteryx]

Well being a centralized service and all they can certainly force a lot of things on their users

What? Nothing. None is forced to use their services.

Same bullshit, again.

There is only one thing that it seems that all Bitcoin users are forced to: use the Bitcoin Core client

BINGO!

Forced to use? No. I use a web wallet so am not forced to use anything 

[hdbuck]

Well being a centralized service and all they can certainly force a lot of things on their users

What? Nothing. None is forced to use their services.

Same bullshit, again.

There is only one thing that it seems that all Bitcoin users are forced to: use the Bitcoin Core client

theymos just get rid of that rat already.

[Lituation]

I don't know what Coinbase managers think about this but it looks pretty sketchy to force users to use an altcoin (XT), they open accounts there to use Bitcoin technology. That's fraud at its worst.
I have never used their service as they don't even offer it in my country, but I don't think I'm ever gonna use it even if they would. Because, obviously this attitude.
"No one man should have all that power."

[Lituation]

There is only one thing that it seems that all Bitcoin users are forced to: use the Bitcoin Core client

You are free to use your Bitcoin XT but we won't buy your worthless altcoins, ever.

[HostFat]

I really want to see what will happen the day the the services that you have in your signs will claim of using a client/node that differs from the Bitcoin Core

[christycalhoun]

I never trusted Coinbase as an exchange and I do not trust their new "bitcoin".

[meono]

I really want to see what will happen the day the the services that you have in your signs will claim of using a client/node that differs from the Bitcoin Core

Sig ad spammers dont care,

Speaks loudly about their posts doesnt it?

[meono]

I never trusted Coinbase as an exchange and I do not trust their new "bitcoin".

Good thing, you should never "trust" bitcoin.

Maybe its time to learn what bitcoin is?

[hdbuck]

I never trusted Coinbase as an exchange and I do not trust their new "bitcoin".

Good thing, you should never "trust" bitcoin.

Maybe its time to learn what bitcoin is?

what the fuck you talking about troll?

[meono]

We should not be allowing a private corporation to try to convince us to move over to Bitcoin XT, something which they are saying entirely for their own benefit - an increase in the amount of transactions would obviously benefit them ignoring everything else, they are for commerce. But it ignores all the other arguments against (and for it as well!) it as they are only pumping it for their own benefit. And now the Bitcoin community, especially on reddit, has descending into circlejerking against theymos and as an implication of this are now circlejerking all over Bitcoin XT and supporting Coinbase here. We have given a private corporation too much power.

Not to mention that the discussion of Bitcoin XT wasn't even banned, Coinbase overstepping these bounds and pumping Bitcoin XT was. Jesus, guys.

what do you expect?
companies are obligated to do anything for their financial interest. they are not a charity. otherweise their investors can sue them... (not talking about xt in this paragraph; just as a general rule)

on the other hand anybody should always be aware that when a company speaks they are primarly speaking for themselves. so i dont think coinbase saying they want XT is something bad for the community.

disclaimer: i'd like to see bigger blocks too. not neceassarily XT.
edit: never used coinbase and i think they are not very trustworthy. have seen way to many negatives stories here about them

The fact that you had to put a disclaimer there says it all about this forum/ "community"

You're afraid of being branded as XT shills, XT supporters even your posts are sound and fair.

I see lots of big blocks supporters do this too, when they only argue about having bigger blocks is needed.

I think censorship does a wonderful job wrecking the community already.

[DiamondCardz]

The fact that you had to put a disclaimer there says it all about this forum/ "community"

You're afraid of being branded as XT shills, XT supporters even your posts are sound and fair.

I see lots of big blocks supporters do this too, when they only argue about having bigger blocks is needed.

I think censorship does a wonderful job wrecking the community already.

I don't like branding people as XT shills. If they genuinely think an opposing opinion, great. We can have a better level of discourse. When it's circlejerking, we have a problem. Personally I want to see civilised debate about BIP100 vs BIP101 (and other BIPxxx solutions too).

On a tangent, as one of the people who loves branding people as dogie shills or even just dogie supporters, you are a bit of a hypocrite. (You said something remotely supporting dogie or remotely defending a claim against him that is outlandish? SHILL!)

[Quantus]

Fuck coinbase and fuck all these god dam XT shills, I'm so sick of it.

[Mickeyb]

I don't know what did you guys expect from the Coinbase. If someone gives himself a right to track the way you spend your bitcoins. If someone also gives himself a right to close your accounts as he wish, didn't you expect that they would do something like this?

They have totally crossed the line but I am not surprised at all.

[DiamondCardz]

I don't know what did you guys expect from the Coinbase. If someone gives himself a right to track the way you spend your bitcoins. If someone also gives himself a right to close your accounts as he wish, didn't you expect that they would do something like this?

They have totally crossed the line but I am not surprised at all.

Indeed. It's unfortunate that /r/bitcoin is too busy circlejerking in an anti-theymos brigade that they have started circlejerking over Coinbase and BIP101 as a result to try to maximise how much of an "edgy cryptoanarchist" they can become by "sticking it to censorship". The real issue here has been completely buried and Coinbase is just rubbing their hands and leaning back in their chairs.

[gio3442]

IIRC coinbase holds no mining equipment nor have plans to invest in it. Overwhelming majority of the miners are currently blocking XT and as long as this keeps going we're safe.

[Soros Shorts]

I don't know what did you guys expect from the Coinbase. If someone gives himself a right to track the way you spend your bitcoins. If someone also gives himself a right to close your accounts as he wish, didn't you expect that they would do something like this?

They have totally crossed the line but I am not surprised at all.

The problem is that Bitcoin noobs in the US are likely to go to Coinbase to buy their first coins. Because they don't know any better they think it is OK to submit to all these conditions. Due to this they do have some potential economic clout.

[DiamondCardz]

IIRC coinbase holds no mining equipment nor have plans to invest in it. Overwhelming majority of the miners are currently blocking XT and as long as this keeps going we're safe.

Indeed, and we have seen some mining pools openly come out against BIP101 and state they will continue mining BIP100 blocks. But:

So what happens when Coinbase, BitPay and Blockchain try to get us to move to XT?

a) We move and state that we are fine with the big companies pushing us around, and the dream of Bitcoin being a decentralized currency where the decisions are made mainly by the users is dead.

b) Consensus for BIP101 fails and Coinbase, BitPay and Blockchain are left failing. The Bitcoin price will crash if something as dramatic as this happens.

These companies are leading us down a rocky road for their own personal gain.

BitPay and Blockchain have stated they intend to change to BIP101 by the end of December. It's going to create a rocky road where we hit a) or b), and b) seems quite possible in the near future.

[HostFat]

Every businesses that uses Bitcoin will want to have bigger blocks and not giving any voting power to the miners, deal with it.

Coinbase is just the first that has clearly given a state to this issue, just wait for all the others.

Welcome to Bitcoin: permissionless innovation.

[DiamondCardz]

Every businesses that uses Bitcoin will want to have bigger blocks and not giving any voting power to the miners, deal with it.

Coinbase is just the first that has clearly given a state to this issue, just wait for all the others.

Deal with it?

I'm sorry?

Are you trying to say that we should all just allow the businesses to take control of the decision making for the Bitcoin community, essentially centralising the decision-making and ruining what Bitcoin is supposed to be all about?

[HostFat]

You should talk to all the owner of nodes, they own the network.
https://bitnodes.21.co

The owner of nodes will listen to the demand of the network, the common users.

What will the common users demand?
Slow confirmations?
High fees?

I think not

[DiamondCardz]

You should talk to all the owner of nodes, they own the network.
https://bitnodes.21.co

The owner of nodes will listen to the demand of the network, the common users.

What will the common users demand?
Slow confirmation?
High fees?

I think not

You say that as if there are not other alternatives to BIP101 (err, BIP100 and BIP102?) that are already liked, mainly BIP100 here. When most people are just looking for a way to simply increase the block size, that doesn't mean we need to start seeing Coinbase force the solution they like the most upon us.

[HostFat]

Giving power to the miners is a worst case scenario, so the is only the BIP101 as a valid solution now (with big blocks).
It's a logical choice for business as Coinbase, there is no "force" involved.

Everyone is still free to run whatever wants in his computer/server, but a good solution must arrive. (and be developed)

Actually, BIP101 is the only one available in code.

Coinbase (or whatever business) will chose the best one.

If you don't like it, ask and/or pay a developer for something different, but do it early. The market / users demand for a solution now.

[DiamondCardz]

Giving power to the miners is a worst case scenario, so the is only the BIP101 as a valid solution now (with big blocks).
It's a logical choice for business as Coinbase, there is no "force" involved.

Everyone is still free to run whatever wants in his computer/server, but a good solution must arrive. (and be developed)

Actually, BIP101 is the only one available in code.

Coinbase (or whatever business) will chose the best one.

If you don't like it, ask and/or pay a developer for something different, but do it early. The market / users demand for a solution now.

BIP100 is not much to code (well, for developers of the skill we have).

BIP102 is coded.

BIP103 is coded (I believe).

BIP103++ is being written and coded.

Saying that BIP101 is the only one available is ridiculous. Actually, Bitpay did say BIP100 and others are fine as well. It's mainly Coinbase trying to push BIP101 and nothing else. In fact, a Coinbase member, Charlie Lee, also a founder of Litecoin, advocates against XT and BIP101. It's not our best option and we shouldn't be coerced into it.

[HostFat]

BIP102

Abstract
Simple, one-time increase in total amount of transaction data permitted in a block from 1MB to 2MB.

LOL, you clearly live in a fantasy world.

I give up.

[danielW]

They are not alone http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

BitPay is also a commerce processor, they are essentially equivalent to Coinbase. I don't even know why Blockchain is there and why they are relevant. Based on BitPay's signature being first I'd gamble they wrote the letter.

I have had it with Coinbase. They are already on my blacklist. If anyone from Coinbase is reading (and I'm sure you are), I will never use your service again and I shall forbid any close contact to do so either. Do you want to ruin your business? Because this is how it starts. Coinbase has lose all credibility from now on and whatever their CEO says should be disregarded.

I don't plan to use them anymore where I can avoid it. This is how you fuck up Bitcoin, by starting to get involved in major development issues as if you're a company lobbying the US government. We don't want that shit, that's centralisation.

Core is under centralized development. Decentralization = freedom of choice. Stop being such an hypocrite.

Nobody is really against alternative implementations. We dont agree with one specific implementation and how it attempts to change consensus. How is anybody being a hypocrite? We are allowed to believe that having XT being the reference client is bad for Bitcoin.

Nobody says you dont have a choice, and most importantly nobody can stop your choice. We are allowed to say its a bad choice.

[iCEBREAKER]

we're getting kind of fucked here if all of the large companies are going to start running code for Bitcoin XT and trying to move us all away from Bitcoin Core.

We're fine.  Bitcoin was built to withstand such attacks by endowing its defenders with overwhelming advantages.

Let Coinbase and Circle try to bite our ankles.  They will break their teeth.

[MbitSport]

A post was made on the Linux Foundation site using a Satoshi Nakamoto account.   His original message here.  The author is close to declaring bitcoin a "failed project".  There was no signature key to verify the authors identity.

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork. The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour. They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism. If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

http://www.debtcrash.report/entry/satoshi-nakamoto-comes-out-of-hiding-to-denounces-the-direction-of-bitcoin

I don t actually think at all that Satoshi himself wrote this but interesting none the less.

(oligopolies if its already been quoted a million & 1)

[TheMage]

Hashrate will follow where the money is. I am not worried about that.

You don't seem to understand - China is where the money is (am guessing you must be American as only Americans would make such stupid statements).

Whats with the Anti-American sentiment? I've seen this from a few people in this thread and honestly it's alarming that people are stooping down to this type of level.

[iCEBREAKER]

Hashrate will follow where the money is. I am not worried about that.

You don't seem to understand - China is where the money is (am guessing you must be American as only Americans would make such stupid statements).

Whats with the Anti-American sentiment? I've seen this from a few people in this thread and honestly it's alarming that people are stooping down to this type of level.

Haters hate because they're jealous.  EG, this Brit envious of his cousins that stood up for themselves and are no longer the property of a (the) Royal Family.



This lady owns CIYAM and his wife just as an American owns their Buick and their dog.

[TheMage]

Hashrate will follow where the money is. I am not worried about that.

You don't seem to understand - China is where the money is (am guessing you must be American as only Americans would make such stupid statements).

Whats with the Anti-American sentiment? I've seen this from a few people in this thread and honestly it's alarming that people are stooping down to this type of level.

Haters hate because they're jealous.  EG, this Brit envious of his cousins that stood up for themselves and are no longer the property of a (the) Royal Family.

https://i.imgur.com/Wk5GtQO.jpg

This lady owns CIYAM and his wife just as an American owns their Buick and their dog.

My statement goes both ways 

[Carlton Banks]

There is only one thing that it seems that all Bitcoin users are forced to: use the Bitcoin Core client

Which part of "consensus-driven ledger" do you not understand?

[HostFat]

Which part of "consensus-driven ledger" do you not understand?

I understand that this place is full of people in bad faith that love censorship, appeal to authority and can't talk without being in full of logic fallacies.

[Miracal]

I have a doubt, how does XT become a threat to Bitcoin, i would like to know?

Are they going to replace Bitcoin with XT and soon there will be no longer Bitcoin but BitcoinXT if that is the case it is ridiculous. We want Bitcoin the original predecessor to stay.

P.S:  The name itself looks terrible BitcoinXT , what a joke.

[HostFat]

I have a doubt, how does XT become a threat to Bitcoin, i would like to know?

Are they going to replace Bitcoin with XT and soon there will be no longer Bitcoin but BitcoinXT if that is the case it is ridiculous. We want Bitcoin the original predecessor to stay.

Yes, XT agents will come to your home and will force you to install an XT node 

[Miracal]

I have a doubt, how does XT become a threat to Bitcoin, i would like to know?

Are they going to replace Bitcoin with XT and soon there will be no longer Bitcoin but BitcoinXT if that is the case it is ridiculous. We want Bitcoin the original predecessor to stay.

Yes, XT agents will come to your home and will force you to install an XT node 

You are right no one is forcing us to install XT node, whatever they do let them not change the name of Bitcoin. Forum is under constant DDOS attack, Theymos should do something about it like installing a cloudfare.

[HostFat]

The name of the client was Bitcoin, than Bitcoin-Qt, and now Bitcoin Core.
Even if the client will have name Bitcoin XXX, the name doesn't matter.

[cjmoles]

I have a doubt, how does XT become a threat to Bitcoin, i would like to know?

Are they going to replace Bitcoin with XT and soon there will be no longer Bitcoin but BitcoinXT if that is the case it is ridiculous. We want Bitcoin the original predecessor to stay.

Yes, XT agents will come to your home and will force you to install an XT node 

Hah!  Let them come!  I have second amendment rights under the US Constitution and I have three trained Rottweilers.  I'm not letting Coinbase or anybody else play with my nodes without my consent!  Period!  Bring it!

Seriously though....this whole argument is becoming very worrisome.  The entire debate makes me wonder if the arguments will have consequences that are more detrimental to the project than any negative effects associated with the proposed changes.

[Lauda]

There are many option other than BIP 101 such as BIP 100, 102 & 103.
I think BIP 100 & BIP 103 looks better than BIP 101,so why many companies want use BIP 101? Are they have hidden motives or there are flaws in BIP 100 & BIP 103?

BIP100 in addition to dynamically changing blocks. There's no need to give miners any power and thus the main arguments of the XT propaganda group fall down the drain. Well god knows what Hearn promised Coinbase. It is problematic because of many thing, one being this: Mike Hearn will be the benevolent dictator of XT. In other words, he will implement whatever bad companies need/want regardless of what the users think. So much freedom of choice.  

Forum is under constant DDOS attack, Theymos should do something about it like installing a cloudfare.

No, it is not; and cloudfare is bad. This is off-topic though.

[Stringer Bell]

I've withdrawn all remaining holdings at Coinbase, and won't be using their services again.

[Stringer Bell]

Users "knight22" and "meono" , your shilling is obvious and pathetic. Anybody who thinks for themselves can see the truth.

It's sad you can't think of any other way to generate income for yourself but supporting those who are attempting to destroy something positive in this world. Do you not posses any other skills? Is this all you can offer this world? You can do better. What do you tell your family? Surely not that you spread lies for the highest bidder. What else do you spread for the highest bidder.

May you examine your conscience and way of life and think about what you're doing.

[doublemore]

Do coinbase really have that much power? wouldn't an exchange like bitfinex or all the china ones combined have more power?

[jubalix]

I don't completely grok the whole argument blocksize arguments, however XT seem to be a bridge to far due to the steepness of the exponent. We likely need larger blocks, but not in the XT way. Its too much too soon. I *think* BP100 seemed reasonable if that quote below is true forget that. I have not run the maths on it though nor have the time to right now.

To my mind a slower increase or the ability to increase based on demand seems reasonable. However the latter may be spamable, the former what is the right rate is the killer question.

I *think* satoshi envisaged larger block in the first instance (was it 33mb?).

[DiamondCardz]

Which part of "consensus-driven ledger" do you not understand?

I understand that this place is full of people in bad faith that love censorship, appeal to authority and can't talk without being in full of logic fallacies.

Oh come on. If you have that much of a problem with us who dislike what is happening with Coinbase and BIP101 and want to pump it so much then go off to a different forum because currently there is not consensus for BIP101. Face it. Coinbase is having too much of an influence.

This thread is not supposed to be a debate of BIP100 vs BIP101 vs BIP102 vs BIP103 vs BIP103++, or Core vs XT vs other alternatives. This thread is about protecting the decentralised nature of decision-making in Bitcoin as much as possible.

Edit: Something worth reading: http://swag.pw/2015/11/08/bitcoin-decentralisation-bip101-coinbase-and-hypocrisy/

[HostFat]

There are many option other than BIP 101 such as BIP 100, 102 & 103.
I think BIP 100 & BIP 103 looks better than BIP 101,so why many companies want use BIP 101? Are they have hidden motives or there are flaws in BIP 100 & BIP 103?

BIP103 is to low.

Wuille proposes to increase the block size limit with 4.4% by January 2017 and automatically repeat this process every 97 days, more or less. This allows for a yearly block size growth rate of 17.7%. According to Wuille, this is consistent with the average growth rate of bandwidth over the past years. The increases of the block size limit will then continue up until July 2063. At that rate, the maximum block size will reach 2MB by 2021, 8 MB by 2030, and eventually end up at slightly less than 2GB in 2063.

BIP100

The maximum block size could double every 2.7 months, leading to growth at rates of 16x + every year.
The only ceiling on this would be the message size limit of 32MB. This is far faster than allowed by BIP101 and has the potential to truly put running a full client out of reach of all but professionals.

https://www.bridge21inc.com/blog/seven-reasons-a-vote-for-bip100-may-be-complicated/

Moreover, it add impracticability.
None will start business on a network that can have a size a day and a different size two months after and another one the next months (up and down)

It's pure logic, nothing hidden.

[jonald_fyookball]

Never had a problem with coinbase. 

The fact they support bigger blocks is good! 

[DiamondCardz]

Never had a problem with coinbase.  

The fact they support bigger blocks is good!  

No, the fact they and other services want to force a move to BIP101 is not good.

Of course, most places should support bigger blocks. The consensus is that we need bigger blocks. However, there is not user consensus for BIP101 nor is there miner consensus for BIP101. Corporations should not be trying to force or persuade us into these changes, else we simply turn into a system of centralised decision making and corporate lobbying.]

Perhaps BIP101 is the solution. But this is not the way such a change should be implemented.

[hdbuck]

There are many option other than BIP 101 such as BIP 100, 102 & 103.
I think BIP 100 & BIP 103 looks better than BIP 101,so why many companies want use BIP 101? Are they have hidden motives or there are flaws in BIP 100 & BIP 103?

BIP103 is to low.

Wuille proposes to increase the block size limit with 4.4% by January 2017 and automatically repeat this process every 97 days, more or less. This allows for a yearly block size growth rate of 17.7%. According to Wuille, this is consistent with the average growth rate of bandwidth over the past years. The increases of the block size limit will then continue up until July 2063. At that rate, the maximum block size will reach 2MB by 2021, 8 MB by 2030, and eventually end up at slightly less than 2GB in 2063.

BIP100

The maximum block size could double every 2.7 months, leading to growth at rates of 16x + every year.
The only ceiling on this would be the message size limit of 32MB. This is far faster than allowed by BIP101 and has the potential to truly put running a full client out of reach of all but professionals.

https://www.bridge21inc.com/blog/seven-reasons-a-vote-for-bip100-may-be-complicated/

Moreover, it add impracticability.
None will start business on a network that can have a size a day and a different size two months after and another one the next months (up and down)

It's pure logic, nothing hidden.

lel talking about logic, please do share as to why numbers regarding blocksize woudl seem too low, if not to high in the first place.

and do not forget to bring on the maths and logic at the party.

Currently, the Bitcoin blockchain is growing at a rate of ~1.2 GB every single month. Gavincoin’s 20 MB blocks would grow the size of its blockchain by 2.88 GIGABYTES PER DAY or 1.05 TERABYTES PER YEAR since they will be filled with essentially zero-fee spam transactions by design.

If you’re hosting your Gavincoin node on a VPS, you’re looking at costs in the order of $1,000 per year, or 50x what a Bitcoin node costs! Even if you’re running your Gavincoin node at home, and you want to buy 5 years of storage up-front, you’re looking at $300 for the hard drive and another $250 per year in additional Internet bandwidth capacity, which is again, about 50x more than you’re currently paying.

http://www.contravex.com/2015/02/11/the-economics-of-sinking-20-mb-gavincoin-blocks/

According to this page: http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/visa-international-history/
Visa was doing 807 transactions per second in 1992.
Dividing the average transaction block size by the average number of transactions figures out the average transaction size and then dividing that by 1mb then dividing that out across ten minutes makes a number of around 2.8 transactions per second per megabyte of block space.

So a 100x increase in block size would get us to about 1/3rd of the way to the network capacity of the visa network from 1992 and about one half one one percent of the way to the capacity of the visa network in 2015.

Why is block size even talked about in the context of scaling again? It seems like even jumps of 100x or 1000x or whatever make virtually ZERO impact.

else, give us a break and fork off, troll.

[jonald_fyookball]

 Corporations should not be trying to force or persuade us into these changes, else we simply turn into a system of centralised decision making and  
 

Nah.  Let them try to persuade whoever they want.  It's called freedom of speech.

More importantly:  Blockstream, a private company who also controls most
of the core developers, represents far more of "centralized decision making" than
anything else.

[brg444]

 Corporations should not be trying to force or persuade us into these changes, else we simply turn into a system of centralised decision making and  
 

Nah.  Let them try to persuade whoever they want.  It's called freedom of speech.

More importantly:  Blockstream, a private company who also controls most
of the core developers, represents far more of "centralized decision making" than
anything else.

I see you're still shamelessly spreadin lies

[RawDog]

Not to mention that the discussion of Bitcoin XT wasn't even banned, Coinbase overstepping these bounds and pumping Bitcoin XT was. Jesus, guys.

Here's how you know the XT guys are right:  anti XT guys simply call them shills.  They try to ban them.  They don't want the argument heard.  They want to enforce 'bounds' on other people.  Yet, at the same time, they don't bring any argument at all in favor of crippling bitcoin with 1MB so that there stupid Blockstream will become more needed.  When someone tries to win an argument with DDOS and censorship - it is time to watch out.  XT is correct.  Blockstream/1MB is raging bullshit.

[hdbuck]

Not to mention that the discussion of Bitcoin XT wasn't even banned, Coinbase overstepping these bounds and pumping Bitcoin XT was. Jesus, guys.

Here's how you know the XT guys are right:  anti XT guys simply call them shills.  They try to ban them.  They don't want the argument heard.  They want to enforce 'bounds' on other people.  Yet, at the same time, they don't bring any argument at all in favor of crippling bitcoin with 1MB so that there stupid Blockstream will become more needed.  When someone tries to win an argument with DDOS and censorship - it is time to watch out.  XT is correct.  Blockstream/1MB is raging bullshit.

fork off already then.

break free from bitcoin prison!

whatcha waiting for?

[DiamondCardz]

Not to mention that the discussion of Bitcoin XT wasn't even banned, Coinbase overstepping these bounds and pumping Bitcoin XT was. Jesus, guys.

Here's how you know the XT guys are right:  anti XT guys simply call them shills.  They try to ban them.  They don't want the argument heard.  They want to enforce 'bounds' on other people.  Yet, at the same time, they don't bring any argument at all in favor of crippling bitcoin with 1MB so that there stupid Blockstream will become more needed.  When someone tries to win an argument with DDOS and censorship - it is time to watch out.  XT is correct.  Blockstream/1MB is raging bullshit.

And at that moment, we knew that RawDog had never actually read any of the BIP papers else he would be aware that there are multiple other solutions for increasing the block size.

Jesus, guys. I'm not even fighting for or against XT or BIP101 here, you damn shills have come and turned the thread into your own little playground.

This thread was created to point out how Coinbase is trying to centralise the decision-making and how we should come to a solution of our own accord, even if it does end up being BIP101 anyway.

You have twisted this thread for your own agenda.

[Jordan23]

Not to mention that the discussion of Bitcoin XT wasn't even banned, Coinbase overstepping these bounds and pumping Bitcoin XT was. Jesus, guys.

Here's how you know the XT guys are right:  anti XT guys simply call them shills.  They try to ban them.  They don't want the argument heard.  They want to enforce 'bounds' on other people.  Yet, at the same time, they don't bring any argument at all in favor of crippling bitcoin with 1MB so that there stupid Blockstream will become more needed.  When someone tries to win an argument with DDOS and censorship - it is time to watch out.  XT is correct.  Blockstream/1MB is raging bullshit.

Go start RawDogCoin. Why are you here? Poor guy.

[iCEBREAKER]

This is a Dilbert vs Pointy-headed CEO situation, where clueless, inept management refuses to listen to its own hand-picked technical experts.

Let's not forget what coblee, Coinbase's VP Engineering, said about XT-like contentious hard forks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj

By forking the codebase, I meant a contentious hardfork of the consensus protocol, the users, and the miners. (Not enough characters in a Twitter message!)

Some people have mentioned that it's ironic for me to say this because I forked Bitcoin to create Litecoin. That fork is drastically different than what BitcoinXT is doing. Litecoin uses a different proof of work, so that it's not competing with Bitcoin for miners. And by creating a new genesis block, it did not fork Bitcoin's userbase. Users and miners can choose to (or not) support Litecoin and it would have no effect on Bitcoin whatsoever.

People have also said that forking the code is just a push of a button and that people do it all the time with open-source software projects. So forking should be encouraged instead of discouraged. I agree with this, but Bitcoin is different in that there is one thing that you need to be careful with. And that is the consensus protocol. Bitcoin only works if everyone (well, the vast majority of the people) are on the same protocol. Any small change to the protocol will leave users on a different fork and not able to reach consensus with the rest of the network. And that's fine in most cases. Users/miners, finding that they are left behind (shorter chain length), can quickly fix their code to be back in consensus.

The reason why BitcoinXT is dangerous and irresponsible is because it could potentially destroy Bitcoin and split the userbase into 2 separate Bitcoin networks. There are very good reasons why most of the core developers and Bitcoin experts are super cautious with increasing the block size too quickly. But these reasons are hard to explain to regular users of Bitcoin. Yet, it is quite easy for Mike & Gavin to convince people that supporting BitcoinXT means supporting block size increase, which makes Bitcoin scale for worldwide use, and it's what Satoshi intended. BitcoinXT is set to trigger with 75% miner support. This means it can trigger with only 50% miner support + a lucky streak. Or if there are malicious people running NoXT, they can cause the trigger to go off without majority support. When that happens, there's no guarantee that the losing side will all switch to running BitcoinXT. Now you've got a split user base and miner base. Some wallets will support BTC, some will support BTCXT, and some may support both. Same for exchanges and payment processors. It's going to be total chaos. Miners will switch back and forth between mining BTC and BTCXT. Users will send transactions on one network and not know why the recipient didn't get it. The price for both coins will tank. If you thought Litecoin and altcoins dilute the value of Bitcoin, wait til you see what BTCXT does to the price! Actually, the market is already giving us a hint as to why BitcoinXT is such a bad idea.

A more responsible option would have been to set the trigger threshold at a real super majority of 90% miner vote. If it was set at 90%, the chance of a bad fork would be far less likely. But Mike & Gavin knows that there's no way they can get 90% support, so they would rather risk hurting Bitcoin in order to get their way. Mike has even mention using checkpoints to force the issue if XT doesn't get the hashrate majority (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1089283.0). That is scary.

There's a better option. Really try to reach consensus. Unlike what you have been told, the devs actually support increasing the block size. They just couldn't come to a consensus on how much and when. And we still have plenty of time to get to a consensus. Next month, most of the devs and bitcoin experts are gathering in Montreal to discuss this topic to get everyone on the same page. Check out https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/

I urge people to come to that workshop and contribute. I don't see why we cannot come to a consensus on this topic.

[meono]

 Corporations should not be trying to force or persuade us into these changes, else we simply turn into a system of centralised decision making and  
 

Nah.  Let them try to persuade whoever they want.  It's called freedom of speech.

More importantly:  Blockstream, a private company who also controls most
of the core developers, represents far more of "centralized decision making" than
anything else.

I see you're still shamelessly spreadin lies

keep calling someone's statements lies does not give you any credits,

When all you do is talking stupid and attacking anyone with different views

[meono]

Not to mention that the discussion of Bitcoin XT wasn't even banned, Coinbase overstepping these bounds and pumping Bitcoin XT was. Jesus, guys.

Here's how you know the XT guys are right:  anti XT guys simply call them shills.  They try to ban them.  They don't want the argument heard.  They want to enforce 'bounds' on other people.  Yet, at the same time, they don't bring any argument at all in favor of crippling bitcoin with 1MB so that there stupid Blockstream will become more needed.  When someone tries to win an argument with DDOS and censorship - it is time to watch out.  XT is correct.  Blockstream/1MB is raging bullshit.

I'm sure anyone with little brain can agree with you there.

Everytime these anti XT idiots open their mouth, its all about censorship and attacking,

[meono]

Not to mention that the discussion of Bitcoin XT wasn't even banned, Coinbase overstepping these bounds and pumping Bitcoin XT was. Jesus, guys.

Here's how you know the XT guys are right:  anti XT guys simply call them shills.  They try to ban them.  They don't want the argument heard.  They want to enforce 'bounds' on other people.  Yet, at the same time, they don't bring any argument at all in favor of crippling bitcoin with 1MB so that there stupid Blockstream will become more needed.  When someone tries to win an argument with DDOS and censorship - it is time to watch out.  XT is correct.  Blockstream/1MB is raging bullshit.

And at that moment, we knew that RawDog had never actually read any of the BIP papers else he would be aware that there are multiple other solutions for increasing the block size.

Jesus, guys. I'm not even fighting for or against XT or BIP101 here, you damn shills have come and turned the thread into your own little playground.

This thread was created to point out how Coinbase is trying to centralise the decision-making and how we should come to a solution of our own accord, even if it does end up being BIP101 anyway.

You have twisted this thread for your own agenda.

Which is exactly false. It has been already established that your claim is silly but ofcourse you're refused to hear that then call anyone who disagrees.... shills.

You just confirm Rawdog's post, dont you see?

[TheMage]

Can't we all just get along? 

[DiamondCardz]

Which is exactly false. It has been already established that your claim is silly but ofcourse you're refused to hear that then call anyone who disagrees.... shills.

You just confirm Rawdog's post, dont you see?

That is the only time I have called someone a shill in this entire thread, and I am calling both those shilling for and against BIP101 shills. You really are a blind old git if you think I'm trying to push an agenda regarding BIP101 or XT, that's not what the thread is about.

And no, I don't agree with you there. We should not be allowing companies like Coinbase to make these important decisions for us, we should not be listening and circlejerking for them! We need discourse, not rage in some crypto-anarchist fashion.

[hdbuck]

Not to mention that the discussion of Bitcoin XT wasn't even banned, Coinbase overstepping these bounds and pumping Bitcoin XT was. Jesus, guys.

Here's how you know the XT guys are right:  anti XT guys simply call them shills.  They try to ban them.  They don't want the argument heard.  They want to enforce 'bounds' on other people.  Yet, at the same time, they don't bring any argument at all in favor of crippling bitcoin with 1MB so that there stupid Blockstream will become more needed.  When someone tries to win an argument with DDOS and censorship - it is time to watch out.  XT is correct.  Blockstream/1MB is raging bullshit.

I'm sure anyone with little brain can agree with you there.

Everytime these anti XT idiots open their mouth, its all about censorship and attacking,

lol wut? you are the guys calling moderation censorship whilst brigading all over reddit and painting the core devs as some despotic ad hitlerian people.

yet the 'benevolent dictators' hearndresen you keep on praying lost all their credibility with them stupid politics, trying to social engineer them rotten fork.

so how about you just give it a break with the blatant bullshit and lies?

whining on forums wont help your case, you are free to fork off anytime y know.

run a node, mine your shit, contribute to its code, whatever rocks your wolrd really, just stop wasting our time here.

[ArticMine]

Coinbase pushing for a larger blocksize should be a wake up call to the small block crowd given that Coinbase's business strategy is to a large part to encourage off blockchain Bitcoin transactions.

I have been following this debate for well over three years now and the simple reality is that Bitcoin will either scale to meet transaction demand or simply die. There are alts with adaptive blocksize limits waiting in the wings. Focusing on Bitcoin XT ignores the fact that Bitcoin XT, has a fair amount of baggage that is unrelated to the blocksize issue. That being said Gavin's proposal to increase the blocksize to 8 GB over a period of 20 years is way ahead of any of the other proposals that have proposed. One can simply take the Bitcoin XT blocksize proposal without the "extra baggage". 

[RoadTrain]

Not to mention that the discussion of Bitcoin XT wasn't even banned, Coinbase overstepping these bounds and pumping Bitcoin XT was. Jesus, guys.

Here's how you know the XT guys are right:  anti XT guys simply call them shills.  They try to ban them.  They don't want the argument heard.  They want to enforce 'bounds' on other people.  Yet, at the same time, they don't bring any argument at all in favor of crippling bitcoin with 1MB so that there stupid Blockstream will become more needed.  When someone tries to win an argument with DDOS and censorship - it is time to watch out.  XT is correct.  Blockstream/1MB is raging bullshit.

LOL! Welcome to the club! Hint: your reply is a non sequitur.

Which part of "consensus-driven ledger" do you not understand?

I understand that this place is full of people in bad faith that love censorship, appeal to authority and can't talk without being in full of logic fallacies.

[bambou]

Obvisouly, considering a decentralized network, its resilience lies within its ability to not let aggressive centrally planned change forks destabilize the whole system and especially without OVERWHELMING consensus.

Hence DDosing the 'traitors' is quite useful and common as a natural defense mechanism.

So rejoy people, Bitcoin is in good health!

[HSBC Banking]

The block size needs increasing substantially over the next few years to be suitable for increased transactions. How will we achieve that is open to debate. It also depends on the state of the art computer technology.

[mezzomix]

The block size needs increasing substantially over the next few years to be suitable for increased transactions. How will we achieve that is open to debate. It also depends on the state of the art computer technology.

I have no problem with that. So let's find a consensus between 1MB and 8MB (I'm fine with every value within those bounds the users select). If we see that this new limit is reached we decide again.

If you want an automatic increase to 8GB, just fork bitcoin! I will not follow your fork.

[Cuidler]

The block size needs increasing substantially over the next few years to be suitable for increased transactions. How will we achieve that is open to debate. It also depends on the state of the art computer technology.

I have no problem with that. So let's find a consensus between 1MB and 8MB (I'm fine with every value within those bounds the users select). If we see that this new limit is reached we decide again.

If you want an automatic increase to 8GB, just fork bitcoin! I will not follow your fork.

Your view about regular manual increases as becomes necessary is the same as mine, hoewer in situation where small group blocking any increase at all, Im afraid consensus is impossible here. The longer the status quo of 1MB is keept, the less faith I have a consensus is possible here and any solution like XT is better than waiting for impossible to happen (consensus with those defending 1MB).

[CIYAM]

Your view about regular manual increases as becomes necessary is the same as mine, hoewer in situation where small group blocking any increase at all, Im afraid consensus is impossible here. The longer the status quo of 1MB is keept, the less faith I have a consensus is possible here and any solution like XT is better than waiting for impossible to happen (consensus with those defending 1MB).

There is no small group blocking any increase at all (not at least amongst the core developers) and there is going to be another meetup next month to further discussions about increasing the block size.

The XT shills just keep ignoring reality and shouting "we need to change and put Mike Hearn in charge ASAP" because that is what they have been told (or paid) to say.

Well - sorry guys - but your rubbish "urgent action required now" mantra is simply not working and most Bitcoin professionals and enthusiasts really don't want Mike Hearn to become the CEO of Bitcoin.

[Cuidler]

Your view about regular manual increases as becomes necessary is the same as mine, hoewer in situation where small group blocking any increase at all, Im afraid consensus is impossible here. The longer the status quo of 1MB is keept, the less faith I have a consensus is possible here and any solution like XT is better than waiting for impossible to happen (consensus with those defending 1MB).

There is no small group blocking any increase at all (not at least amongst the core developers) and there is going to be another meetup next month to further discussions about increasing the block size.

So at least you will see yourselves next month whether rational decision like increasing to 2MB soon and reevaluating the sitation in about one year whether another increase is required based on how much the blocks are filled up, or whether the discussion will lead to no consensus again (basically blocked situation in favour to the 1MB supporteers).

I bet no decsion will be made and you will still keep saying there is no small group blocking any increase at all.

[CIYAM]

I bet no decsion will be made and you will still keep saying there is no small group blocking any increase at all.

How much would you like to bet?

(my guess is not much)

If you'd like to "put your BTC where your mouth is" then I'll take on a bet with you (say 1 BTC which would need to be sent to a trusted escrow).

[Cuidler]

I bet no decsion will be made and you will still keep saying there is no small group blocking any increase at all.

How much would you like to bet?

(my guess is not much)

If you'd like to "put your BTC where your mouth is" then I'll take on a bet with you (say 1 BTC which would need to be sent to a trusted escrow).

Im not dumb enought to bet on what you will be saying next month or tommorow. And about the first part, I guess you might have much better knowledge about the developers stance on the matter thus Im not going to bet as well, at least your reply gives bit hope my scepticism might be unjustificable here. We will see anyway.

[hdbuck]

Your view about regular manual increases as becomes necessary is the same as mine, hoewer in situation where small group blocking any increase at all, Im afraid consensus is impossible here. The longer the status quo of 1MB is keept, the less faith I have a consensus is possible here and any solution like XT is better than waiting for impossible to happen (consensus with those defending 1MB).

There is no small group blocking any increase at all (not at least amongst the core developers) and there is going to be another meetup next month to further discussions about increasing the block size.

So at least you will see yourselves next month whether rational decision like increasing to 2MB soon and reevaluating the sitation in about one year whether another increase is required based on how much the blocks are filled up, or whether the discussion will lead to no consensus again (basically blocked situation in favour to the 1MB supporteers).

I bet no decsion will be made and you will still keep saying there is no small group blocking any increase at all.

this conference is about SCALING bitcoin.

please stop confusing blocksize as an efficient way to improve bitcoin's scalability.

[danielW]

Is the recent fall partly due to coinbase CEO plan to push through XT contentious fork and change leadership team of reference client?

Certainly we had a previous fall from 280 -> 220 right after XT was announced. There was no doubt then.


Its more ambiguous now because the fall was preceded by a very quick run up. Yet It occurred immediately when the story about Coinbase trying to push contentious fork started spreading, and a raise in threads and discussion about XT. The fall was very rapid.

It seems that the potential progress with XT is badly judged by market.

[meono]

Is the recent fall partly due to coinbase CEO plan to push through XT contentious fork and change leadership team of reference client?

Certainly we had a previous fall from 280 -> 220 right after XT was announced. There was no doubt then.


Its more ambiguous now because the fall was preceded by a very quick run up. Yet It occurred immediately when the story about Coinbase trying to push contentious fork started spreading, and a raise in threads and discussion about XT. The fall was very rapid.

It seems that the potential progress with XT is badly judged by market.

LOL are you that stupid?

This is how stupid some of the antiXT idiots can be.


Here is the hint, 44,000 btc was auctioned recently. The number of registers are much lower than expect. Its more reasonable to say, the btc was auctioned at much lower price than the exchange rate.

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

Coinbase CEO comments certainly make a difference. No one should give a whit whether Coinbase runs their node on Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin XT. Only bitcoin miners decide if a hard fork will take place, Coinbase really has no say in the matter, but markets hate uncertainty, imagined or not.

[VirosaGITS]

I use Coinbase and i never heard of this. XT has very little support in term of hashrate, as such i don't really get what the point of the whole discussion is. I don't see what Coinbase actually has to do with this? Coinbase has no hashrate so whatever their political agenda would be, it is completely irrelevant.

In the first place, having bigger block means less tx fee, so i don't see how this benefit any companies or miners.

[iCEBREAKER]

"urgent action required now"

Sorry, Not Tonight Dear!

 

[danielW]

Is the recent fall partly due to coinbase CEO plan to push through XT contentious fork and change leadership team of reference client?

Certainly we had a previous fall from 280 -> 220 right after XT was announced. There was no doubt then.


Its more ambiguous now because the fall was preceded by a very quick run up. Yet It occurred immediately when the story about Coinbase trying to push contentious fork started spreading, and a raise in threads and discussion about XT. The fall was very rapid.

It seems that the potential progress with XT is badly judged by market.

LOL are you that stupid?

This is how stupid some of the antiXT idiots can be.


Here is the hint, 44,000 btc was auctioned recently. The number of registers are much lower than expect. Its more reasonable to say, the btc was auctioned at much lower price than the exchange rate.

I don't think referring to me as stupid or using such poisonous language is productive.  

I have read XT people here complaining about ad hominems yet you just used ad hominems against me, but that does not matter.

What I find disgraceful is that:

 ... The first and most poisonous ad hominems were by the XT supporters against many of the core developers and supporters, who have contributed so much to Bitcoin (before it even existed!), privacy and decentralisation. They done this often for no or little financial reward.  They deserve some courtesy and respect, (as does Gavin).





Anyway I don't find what you say convincing at all for many reasons, I wont go into all of them. The auction occurred after crash. The auction was known before and should have been priced in. The price is not known. The price is itself a reflection of sentiment and value that would be impacted by XT fork possibility.

Pointing out a pattern of pro-XT news leading to price crashes is relevant. Sorry if you dont like hearing it, you dont have to call me stupid.

[Sir_lagsalot]

I really think Coinbase is a great service, although they're pushing it a little too far with making a "new" bitcoin. I believe since Bitcoin is an open source currency, maybe we should have a thread on here requesting and arguing about some good features and changes that should be made to the current bitcoin, and a representative of the community compiles all the ideas together. Not some just-for-profit company. All they're doing is trying to make an alt-coin that is profitable toward them. Maybe Theymos should really ban all BTCXT supporters. I sure don't support them. I'm just here for the free tx fees

[CIYAM]

"urgent action required now"

Sorry, Not Tonight Dear!

Do you normally quote people out of context to imply they said the exact opposite of what they actually said?

[yanertan]

Bitcoin is effectively dead if we have been forced to change to XT, the dream is gone. We need a change that everyone agrees with that is simply made through consensus.If someone gives himself a right to track the way you spend your bitcoins.

[tokeweed]

Typical of corporations...  Like in everything else, they will ruin something and strangle everything we love about it.

[iCEBREAKER]

"urgent action required now"

Sorry, Not Tonight Dear!

Do you normally quote people out of context to imply they said the exact opposite of what they actually said?

Do you normally assume the worst of other people's intentions/abilities?

I left your "I'm parodying XTurds" quote marks in.  Obviously, I'm joining in your pile-on, because it's fun to make fun of the Sore Loserman Gavinistas.

Please check the batteries in your humor detector!   

[CIYAM]

Please check the batteries in your humor detector!   

There is a reason why smileys were invented.