Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already.

[Lauda]

No, that's definitely a false statement. Bitcoin has the most advanced and developed protocol. Most of the shitcoins haven't even patched up the security exploits up until the latest versions.

I find this statement rather amusing, I hope you do realize that a clone of Bitcoin is considered not be innovative at all within the altcoin world, that should tell you something, any altcoin that is worth anything improves on Bitcoin in some way.
[/quote]
Pure strawman. I was talking about security exploits, not specific features that some altcoins may or may not have.

You can joke all you want, but Bitcoin is still losing market share to the alternative cryptocurrencies and that is a fact.

I was not joking when I said mister V was behind it.

I am familiar with the history of Dash, I do not consider it to fundementally undermine the currency of Dash today. I can agree that the history is "shady" but whether that effects the viability of the currency today is again an opinion.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. We know the definition of the word 'shady' and it perfectly aligns with what happened with DRK in the first few days.

This statement is just not true, at least not in the way that I suspect you mean it. I supported the ETH hard fork, and I am actually more bullish now then I was before on ETH. First of all in terms of its "immutability" and censorship resistance it is no different to Bitcoin in terms of normal blockchain transactions, it is equally immutable and censorship resistant, it is equally difficult to roll back transactions on Bitcoin compared to Ethereum, a state change to the contract layer is different to actually rolling back transactions on the blockchain.

No. The chain is not immutable, as was demonstrated with a rollback. As soon as you do this once, it sets a dangerous precedence. Please let me know if my DAO fails miserably why you won't roll back and bail me out like the Fed? Oh wait, "The DAO" was too big too fail. I wonder where we've heard that before.

Arguably Ethereum is presently more decentralized then Bitcoin because it uses an ASIC resistant mining algorithm.

Straw man.

Maybe it is best not to get into a full discussion of the pros and cons of these events and of the design of Ethereum and Bitcoin, but as proof of work blockchains their governance, and transaction immutability are actually identical on a technical level at least. So my point is that your opinion on these altcoins are an opinion and not a fact.

No. Stop defending mutable shitcoins.

Monero will become illegal if it picks up, and you know this as a fact?

Yes. I can't tell you how though, since that's confidential.

The transaction volume on these chains is obviously much lower, but the transactional capacity of these chains is much much higher.

I'll believe it once I see it. Until such time, these are just unbacked claims.
Hint: Every-time you say "Bitcoin maximilism" to back up your arguments, you just end up looking like a fool.

[Carlton Banks]

@Veritas:

for the 2nd time, answer; why do you use so many strawman arguments, so frequently? and why do you deny it so vehemently?

[VeritasSapere]

No, that's definitely a false statement. Bitcoin has the most advanced and developed protocol. Most of the shitcoins haven't even patched up the security exploits up until the latest versions.

I find this statement rather amusing, I hope you do realize that a clone of Bitcoin is considered not be innovative at all within the altcoin world, that should tell you something, any altcoin that is worth anything improves on Bitcoin in some way.

Pure strawman. I was talking about security exploits, not specific features that some altcoins may or may not have.

Not a strawman, you where not that specific in your statement, furthermore such a hand waving statement that most "shitcoins" have lots of security exploits does not carry much weight.

You can joke all you want, but Bitcoin is still losing market share to the alternative cryptocurrencies and that is a fact.

I was not joking when I said mister V was behind it.

Bitcoin market share is now at 79% a historic low.

I am familiar with the history of Dash, I do not consider it to fundementally undermine the currency of Dash today. I can agree that the history is "shady" but whether that effects the viability of the currency today is again an opinion.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. We know the definition of the word 'shady' and it perfectly aligns with what happened with DRK in the first few days.

It is not a fact, the word shady is highly subjective, and even though I do agree with you in using that term, it still stands that whether this should effect the viability of the currency today is again an opinion, and not a fact.

This statement is just not true, at least not in the way that I suspect you mean it. I supported the ETH hard fork, and I am actually more bullish now then I was before on ETH. First of all in terms of its "immutability" and censorship resistance it is no different to Bitcoin in terms of normal blockchain transactions, it is equally immutable and censorship resistant, it is equally difficult to roll back transactions on Bitcoin compared to Ethereum, a state change to the contract layer is different to actually rolling back transactions on the blockchain.

No. The chain is not immutable, as was demonstrated with a rollback. As soon as you do this once, it sets a dangerous precedence. Please let me know if my DAO fails miserably why you won't roll back and bail me out like the Fed? Oh wait, "The DAO" was too big too fail. I wonder where we've heard that before.

Blockchains are not protected by precedent or social convention like you might think but hard cryptography and game theory mechanics. In regards to the transactional immutability Bitcoin and Ethereum are mostly identical, it is practically impossible to roll back blocks and therefore also transactions. This is not what happened with the Ethereum hard fork, it involved a state change on the smart contract layer through the "consensus" mechanism. I consider any change to the rules of the protocol legitimate if it is brought about in such a way.

I understand that this is a major difference in our theories on how the governance of these blockchain systems function, I perceive it to be much more of a social construct, a tool for human beings to govern themselves and each other in a better way. It is a good thing that the code can change through this governance mechanisms, "immutability" in the literal sense of the word is not something we should aim for, if something goes wrong the majority of people should be able change the rules of the system, ideas and people also evolve, these blockchain networks need to evolve with our civilizations.

It is wrong to describe the DOA fork as a bail out, since there are no extra taxes, inflation or "haircuts" like there would be in a bailout like we understand it today. Rather I think the analogy of a bank robbery is much better, we are simply intervening, preventing the bank robbery from taking place. I think this is perfectly justifiable. Before you say "code is law" and smart contracts have no value if they are not "immutable". The opposite is actually true, there is a good reason why all law systems today are non-deterministic, it is the intent of the law here that counts, not the letter of the law.

At the same time even though I do not agree with the reosons for Ethereums Classics existence, I do absolutely respect their right to self determination and at the same time they have given Bitcoin a perfectly viable option that we could follow, splitting the chain, resolving this ideological debate.

ETH is neither a immutable, censorship resistant nor decentralized.

Arguably Ethereum is presently more decentralized then Bitcoin because it uses an ASIC resistant mining algorithm.

Straw man.

Again not a straw man, you can clearly see that I am directly responding to what you have said, furthermore it is impossible for this statement to even be a straw man argument because I am not even implying or inferring your position here whatsoever.

Maybe it is best not to get into a full discussion of the pros and cons of these events and of the design of Ethereum and Bitcoin, but as proof of work blockchains their governance, and transaction immutability are actually identical on a technical level at least. So my point is that your opinion on these altcoins are an opinion and not a fact.

No. Stop defending mutable shitcoins.

Not an argument.

Monero will become illegal if it picks up, and you know this as a fact?

Yes. I can't tell you how though, since that's confidential.

You can not expect a rational person to believe you when you say such a thing, you might have insider knowledge of some sort but I am not in a position to know that, it would be gullible of me to believe you, surely you would agree. Furthermore you claim to have knowledge that Monero is going to be banned in all jurisdictions. What kind of a person are you then? Can we deduct based on this information that you have ties to government? Whatever I am not going to speculate, but this is a rather peculiar statement.

[franky1]

Monero will become illegal if it picks up, and you know this as a fact?

Yes. I can't tell you how though, since that's confidential.

You can not expect a rational person to believe you when you say such a thing, you might have insider knowledge of some sort but I am not in a position to know that, it would be gullible of me to believe you, surely you would agree. Furthermore you claim to have knowledge that Monero is going to be banned in all jurisdictions. What kind of a person are you then? Can we deduct based on this information that you have ties to government? Whatever I am not going to speculate, but this is a rather peculiar statement.

lauda is just a young guy (under 30) he has no real world experience, no experience of coding.
he is however very chummy with many monero holders, and i think he is just baiting you.
secretly him and his chums want monero to supersede bitcoin.
the hint is in the REKT campainers posts. gmaxwell is highly into monero, so is the REKT campaigner icebreaker. then we have the troll twins carlton and lauda who blindly follow their chums and back each other up in a circle jerk by getting spoonfed with whatever false information they can get hold of to push bitcoin in one direction with the ultimate aim that they hope monero becomes more useful because bitcoin has lost its utility
EG lauda loves the fee war that pushes bitcoin away from being cheap for the unbanked third world
EG lauda loves sidechains and offchain because he doesnt want bitcoin capacity growth onchain (even when his friends beloved monero has it)
EG lauda loves centralized control and doesnt want users to decide how they want bitcoin to grow

[Carlton Banks]

I prove your presentation is misleading or false all the time, you've never done the same. And this Monero thing, what are you talking about? I've never been involved in Monero, the only reason you have to bash me with that canard is pure desperation. And you claim I'm trolling! Where is your evidence for this babbling

No evidence exists, here or anywhere else, that I used or use Monero. It's a pretty good alt, but it's still not going to compete properly with Bitcoin without solving it's (far more significant) scaling issues. Last (and first) word on the matter.

[Lauda]

Not a strawman, you where not that specific in your statement, furthermore such a hand waving statement that most "shitcoins" have lots of security exploits does not carry much weight.

It's a pure strawman. Don't blame me for your inadequate research into the development of those altcoins. None of them comes close to Bitcoin in terms of security (both code and network security).

Bitcoin market share is now at 79% a historic low.

This is an obvious case of you spreading false information again. The historic low was reached on March 13, 2016 with 74.41% dominance. Furthermore, it has also hovered around a lower threshold back in late 2014 (specifically 18th of December). If you want to preach the doomsday bullshit, at least do proper research.

It is not a fact, the word shady is highly subjective, and even though I do agree with you in using that term, it still stands that whether this should effect the viability of the currency today is again an opinion, and not a fact.

You're defending a premined shitcoin since you're now invested in it (your words; this makes you highly biased; note: I'm not invested in Bitcoin). That makes you pretty much any average pump & dump altcoin fanatic.

-snip-

You've wrote an useless wall of text that doesn't matter at all. We all know that ETH's promise that "Code is law" was a pure lie. The primary thing that matters is the DTV factor, i.e. "Distance-to-Vitalik".

Again not a straw man, you can clearly see that I am directly responding to what you have said, furthermore it is impossible for this statement to even be a straw man argument because I am not even implying or inferring your position here whatsoever.

Stop wasting everyone's time "no you're wrong, and I'm right" bullshit. You don't even understand fallacies, yet you call upon them constantly against other people.

Furthermore you claim to have knowledge that Monero is going to be banned in all jurisdictions.

"All jurisdictions"? I have not made this claim.

lauda is just a young guy (under 30) he has no real world experience, no experience of coding.
he is however very chummy with many monero holders, and i think he is just baiting you.

No, stop being a blind fool. I don't have any ties to Monero. There's no reason to use it besides for illicit purposes. Not that this is the topic here.

[Conus]

Secondly, Bitcoin is stagnating technologically, when compared to the alternative cryptocurrencies.

No, that's definitely a false statement. Bitcoin has the most advanced and developed protocol. Most of the shitcoins haven't even patched up the security exploits up until the latest versions.

I find this statement rather amusing, I hope you do realize that a clone of Bitcoin is considered not be innovative at all within the altcoin world, that should tell you something, any altcoin that is worth anything improves on Bitcoin in some way.

I suppose you can keep telling your self that 10min block times and a one megabyte blocksize limit with a transparent blockchain are the perfect parameters, this is Bitcoin maximilism I suppose, it would be healthier to at least acknowledge the innovation that is occurring in the altcoin space.

I have to ask, for I am wondering, later on (Lets say in 100 years), if bitcoin is still around and all, will the mining (calculation of the blockchain) be so difficult where one block could get as large as 100GB in file size?  What is put in place where bitcoin will not time out because the transactions are just to difficult to process and store?

[Lauda]

if bitcoin is still around and all, will the mining (calculation of the blockchain) be so difficult where one block could get as large as 100GB in file size? 

The Bitcoin difficulty has not correlation with the block size.

What is put in place where bitcoin will not time out because the transactions are just to difficult to process and store?

The block size limit, which is currently 1 MB. The block size limit is a consensus rule and does not change due to mining difficulty.

[franky1]

No, stop being a blind fool. I don't have any ties to Monero. There's no reason to use it besides for illicit purposes. Not that this is the topic here.

i basically wasted 30 seconds of my life on lauda's off topic bait..(not gonna be baited to search whole 2 years, just enough to show he was involved, which he denied)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=753252.msg8503834#msg8503834
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=753252.msg8512228#msg8512228
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=753252.msg8515859#msg8515859
this final post was the biggest laugh.
especially in regards to all of laudas attempts to make bitcoin look bad saying capacity should not grow and 2mb is bad...(you know, for the same reasons he defended monero)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=753252.msg8524022#msg8524022

[Lauda]

-snip-

Look at those dates (you are either a blind fool or just a troll): August 25, 2014. I have been involved in a lot of altcoins in the past, but have exited the altcoin space during 2014-2015. Now, this isn't even part of the topic here and you have clearly failed. I suggest that you either try to make reasonable arguments relevant to the topic or keep quiet.
Hint: The topic is "Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already.".

[illyiller]

No, stop being a blind fool. I don't have any ties to Monero. There's no reason to use it besides for illicit purposes. Not that this is the topic here.

i basically wasted 30 seconds of my life on lauda's off topic bait..
but it had to be done
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=753252.msg8503834#msg8503834
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=753252.msg8512228#msg8512228
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=753252.msg8515859#msg8515859
this final post was the biggest laugh.
especially in regards to all of laudas attempts to make bitcoin look bad saying capacity should not grow and 2mb is bad...(you know, for the same reasons he defended monero)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=753252.msg8524022#msg8524022

The fact that you are now resorting to character attacks says it all. Meanwhile, your pal VeritasSapere has been pumping DASH, Monero and Ethereum throughout this thread.

It's pretty clear that none of your arguments stand on their own merit.

[VeritasSapere]

No, that's definitely a false statement. Bitcoin has the most advanced and developed protocol. Most of the shitcoins haven't even patched up the security exploits up until the latest versions.

I find this statement rather amusing, I hope you do realize that a clone of Bitcoin is considered not be innovative at all within the altcoin world, that should tell you something, any altcoin that is worth anything improves on Bitcoin in some way.

Not a strawman, you where not that specific in your statement, furthermore such a hand waving statement that most "shitcoins" have lots of security exploits does not carry much weight.

It's a pure strawman. Don't blame me for your inadequate research into the development of those altcoins. None of them comes close to Bitcoin in terms of security (both code and network security).

I was specifically responding to you saying that Bitcoin has the most "advanced and developed protocol". I responded by saying that some altcoins are more innovative then Bitcoin, this is a valid response and it is certainly not a straw man argument.

Bitcoin market share is now at 79% a historic low.

This is an obvious case of you spreading false information again. The historic low was reached on March 13, 2016 with 74.41% dominance. Furthermore, it has also hovered around a lower threshold back in late 2014 (specifically 18th of December). If you want to preach the doomsday bullshit, at least do proper research.

That was and still is an accurate statement, I said that the Bitcoin market share is at a historic low. If I wanted to say it was at an all time low I would have said so. Furthermore when you look at the chart you can clearly see that the points on the chart you are referring to are just short dips. The period we are in now has been categorized by having a consistently low Bitcoin market share. If we where to take a weighted average of the Bitcoin market share today over the last six months we would be at an all time low now.

If you can look at this chart and not see a downwards trend in Bitcoins market share then you are simply blind to the truth.
http://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#btc-percentage

It is not a fact, the word shady is highly subjective, and even though I do agree with you in using that term, it still stands that whether this should effect the viability of the currency today is again an opinion, and not a fact.

You're defending a premined shitcoin since you're now invested in it (your words; this makes you highly biased; note: I'm not invested in Bitcoin). That makes you pretty much any average pump & dump altcoin fanatic.

I find it revealing you are not invested in Bitcoin, people can make their own judgement in that regard. For the record I have a bigger share in Bitcoin compared to any other altcoin, including Dash.

I understand now that most of what you are doing is just attacking my character at this point, it should be obvious to everyone here that I have remained civil, unlike yourself I do not engage in that type of ad hominen and other type of fallacious argumentation since it is not productive towards rational discussion.

-snip-

You've wrote an useless wall of text that doesn't matter at all. We all know that ETH's promise that "Code is law" was a pure lie. The primary thing that matters is the DTV factor, i.e. "Distance-to-Vitalik".

Not an argument.

ETH is neither a immutable, censorship resistant nor decentralized.

Arguably Ethereum is presently more decentralized then Bitcoin because it uses an ASIC resistant mining algorithm.

Straw man.

Again not a straw man, you can clearly see that I am directly responding to what you have said, furthermore it is impossible for this statement to even be a straw man argument because I am not even implying or inferring your position here whatsoever.

Stop wasting everyone's time "no you're wrong, and I'm right" bullshit. You don't even understand fallacies, yet you call upon them constantly against other people.

This is also not an argument, I find it ironic that are saying I do not understand fallacies considering you are accusing me of using a straw man argument over a statement in which I do not infer or imply your position at all. Furthermore for me to point towards the decentralization of mining in Ethereum due to an ASIC resistant algorithm in response to you saying Ethereum is not decentralized is a perfectly valid argument. As a matter of fact I am precisely refuting the argument you made to me directly, the very opposite of a straw man argument.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

I hope you can stop accusing me of straw men arguments considering that I have irrefutable proven that you have falsely accused me of a straw man argument in this case. I do not expect you to admit that you where wrong, however if you did I would respect you more for doing so.

Furthermore you claim to have knowledge that Monero is going to be banned in all jurisdictions.

"All jurisdictions"? I have not made this claim.

To be clear you claimed to know as a fact that Monero would be made illegal if there was greater adoption, you further went on to claim that you had insider knowledge that this was true, first of all your insider knowledge can not be considered as a fact by other people because it can not be publicly verified.

Secondly if I understood your argument correctly, you where saying that Monero can not be a viable alternative to Bitcoin because it will be made illegal, based on your insider knowledge of course. However as far as I understand it, something like Monero could only be stopped by having it made illegal in all jurisdictions, just like Bitcoin, which obviously makes Monero extremely resilient, just like Bitcoin. I did obviously assume that you meant in all jurisdictions since otherwise your reasoning for why Monero can not be a competitor to Bitcoin would be flawed. Since I was using Monero as a counter example to your argument that Bitcoin does not have any competition from the alternative cryptocurrencies.

[Wind_FURY]

I have a hypothetical question. Let us pretend that a hard fork indeed happened. For this example let us use BitcoinXT as the new version to be used in the fork. If the hard fork ended up like the one that happened to Ethereum, who is to blame and what should be done? Now we have two Bitcoin chains and both have die hard supporters unwilling to let go for each.

[illyiller]

I have a hypothetical question. Let us pretend that a hard fork indeed happened. For this example let us use BitcoinXT as the new version to be used in the fork. If the hard fork ended up like the one that happened to Ethereum, who is to blame and what should be done? Now we have two Bitcoin chains and both have die hard supporters unwilling to let go for each.

If there is anyone to blame it is the proponents of the hard fork, because they initiated a network split. There is nothing to be done about it. Miners will mine any chain which it is rational to mine on; there's no way to stop miners from securing either chain. And whether it's rational for miners depends on users; there is no way to force users to use one client or the other.

So if users remain on the original chain, the network will likely split and we will permanently have multiple incompatible networks/blockchains. It doesn't matter which chain has more work (POW) because the two networks cannot communicate with one another.

[Adar Korin]

You don't get out much do you?

That would be like suggesting you could only go into a shop and pay with Visa instead of MasterCard or Visa-versa and then saying to the customer "Well, even though you have the right card, your money isn't the right type of money.

Which fork would get to retain the right to call itself BitCoin?

[dumbfbrankings]

I have a hypothetical question. Let us pretend that a hard fork indeed happened. For this example let us use BitcoinXT as the new version to be used in the fork. If the hard fork ended up like the one that happened to Ethereum, who is to blame and what should be done? Now we have two Bitcoin chains and both have die hard supporters unwilling to let go for each.

The horror, the horror.



Are we afraid of the wisdom and function of free market capitalism? You know... that thing that's supposed to underpin the incentives of Bitcoin?

Look at those dates (you are either a blind fool or just a troll): August 25, 2014. I have been involved in a lot of altcoins in the past, but have exited the altcoin space during 2014-2015. Now, this isn't even part of the topic here and you have clearly failed. I suggest that you either try to make reasonable arguments relevant to the topic or keep quiet.
Hint: The topic is "Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already.".

Whoa... and here I was just thinking lauda was a petty sig spammer and paid toady... The ol' iCEBREAKER model to "early-adopter" profit. Sly as a fox Lauda, I'm legitimately impressed. 

[Wind_FURY]

I have a hypothetical question. Let us pretend that a hard fork indeed happened. For this example let us use BitcoinXT as the new version to be used in the fork. If the hard fork ended up like the one that happened to Ethereum, who is to blame and what should be done? Now we have two Bitcoin chains and both have die hard supporters unwilling to let go for each.

The horror, the horror.



Are we afraid of the wisdom and function of free market capitalism? You know... that thing that's supposed to underpin the incentives of Bitcoin?

The price is besides the point here. The thing to learn from the Ethereum hard fork is that there were factors that they did not anticipate that would happen. Instead of doing only the hard fork, the original chain lived on and became a competing chain. The effect of it on Ethereum may be minimal because the network is quite young. So yes they have that luxury to make drastic measures. My question is how will this affect a more established blockchain like Bitcoin?

[dumbfbrankings]

The price is besides the point here. Thing thing to learn from the Ethereum hard fork is that there were factors that they did not anticipate that would happen. Instead of doing only the hard fork, the original chain lived on and became a competing chain. The effect of it on Ethereum may be minimal because the network is quite young. So yes they have that luxury to make drastic measures. My question is how will this affect a more established blockchain like Bitcoin?

It's called freedom, friendo. A fork, it's the open source way.

It's why little Johnny is better off if Mommy and Daddy (who hate and abuse each other, in front of the investors kids), find separate houses.

[VeritasSapere]

I have a hypothetical question. Let us pretend that a hard fork indeed happened. For this example let us use BitcoinXT as the new version to be used in the fork. If the hard fork ended up like the one that happened to Ethereum, who is to blame and what should be done? Now we have two Bitcoin chains and both have die hard supporters unwilling to let go for each.

It's called freedom, friendo. A fork, it's the open source way.

It's why little Johnny is better off if Mommy and Daddy (who hate and abuse each other, in front of the investors kids), find separate houses.

No one is to blame or should be. What has recently happened to Ethereum is not a bad outcome, splitting Bitcoin in the same way should be considered a positive thing. Like dumbfbrankings just said it represents freedom, the analogy of a couple breaking up and finding separate houses is indeed a good analogy.

[Wind_FURY]

No one is to blame or should be. What has recently happened to Ethereum is not a bad outcome, splitting Bitcoin in the same manner should be considered a positive thing. Like dumbfbrankings just said it represents freedom, the analogy of a couple breaking up and finding separate houses is indeed a good analogy.

If you think that the split in Ethereum's chain was not a bad outcome then you are gravely mistaken. Who would want for it to split like that resulting with another chain that is now competing with your own. You also say that splitting the Bitcoin blockchain should be considered a positive thing? That is absurd. I do not know if you are serious or you are trolling.

There is more at stake here because the whole Bitcoin economy is relying on the stability of the network to keep it going. If they do a hard fork and then the network splits then they are risking destroying that economy and the value of the coin itself. I am certain a lot of people WILL look for someone to blame.