Why isn't bitcointalk.org neutral?

[zimmah]

Why only have the link to bitcoin core at the top, and not classic, unlimited and XT as well?     

It's easy to remain the client used by most users if you control the main platform of communication, but this is not decentralized at all.

[Foxpup]

Why only have the link to bitcoin core at the top, and not classic, unlimited and XT as well?

Because those are altcoins, and this forum is called Bitcoin Talk.

[zimmah]

Why only have the link to bitcoin core at the top, and not classic, unlimited and XT as well?

Because those are altcoins, and this forum is called Bitcoin Talk.

No, these are called options.

The entire point of bitcoin is that the USERS can choose. Not any one group of devs.

The Core devs are obviously trying to centralize bitcoin under their rule, and not giving the other dev teams a fair chance and an equal playing ground.

This is centralization

Classic, unlimited and XT are all bitcoin, and I'm fairly sure they would all be more popular than Core if they would have the same opportunity to be listed as 'official' bitcoin clients. 

Core is in no way more 'official' than Classic, Unlimited or XT.

[OmegaStarScream]

Why only have the link to bitcoin core at the top, and not classic, unlimited and XT as well?    

It's easy to remain the client used by most users if you control the main platform of communication, but this is not decentralized at all.

Bitcoin Knots (https://bitcoinknots.org) for example is listed on Bitcoin.org while others aren't because XT , classic ,unlimited etc... do changes to the network rules which makes them an Altcoin , as simple as that.

[A!]

Why only have the link to bitcoin core at the top, and not classic, unlimited and XT as well?

Because those are altcoins, and this forum is called Bitcoin Talk.

No, these are called options.

The entire point of bitcoin is that the USERS can choose. Not any one group of devs.

The Core devs are obviously trying to centralize bitcoin under their rule, and not giving the other dev teams a fair chance and an equal playing ground.

This is centralization

Classic, unlimited and XT are all bitcoin, and I'm fairly sure they would all be more popular than Core if they would have the same opportunity to be listed as 'official' bitcoin clients. 

Core is in no way more 'official' than Classic, Unlimited or XT.

If you truly want decentralization create your own forum. By putting all coins in one forum is centralization.

[SaltySpitoon]

Why only have the link to bitcoin core at the top, and not classic, unlimited and XT as well?

Because those are altcoins, and this forum is called Bitcoin Talk.

No, these are called options.

The entire point of bitcoin is that the USERS can choose. Not any one group of devs.

The Core devs are obviously trying to centralize bitcoin under their rule, and not giving the other dev teams a fair chance and an equal playing ground.

This is centralization

Classic, unlimited and XT are all bitcoin, and I'm fairly sure they would all be more popular than Core if they would have the same opportunity to be listed as 'official' bitcoin clients. 

Core is in no way more 'official' than Classic, Unlimited or XT.

Technically, until a Bitcoin fork obtains consensus, it is an alt chain. Core is "Bitcoin" at the moment. Should Classic, Unlimited, XT, obtain consensus to take over as "bitcoin" then the forum would be about that chain.

[minifrij]

The entire point of bitcoin is that the USERS can choose. Not any one group of devs.

No one is stopping any one else from choosing a different version of Bitcoin to use, especially not the forum.
Keep in mind that this is a private forum, and whatever theymos chooses to be listed here is what will be listed here. He has no obligation to anyone to do anything else.

Classic, unlimited and XT are all bitcoin, and I'm fairly sure they would all be more popular than Core if they would have the same opportunity to be listed as 'official' bitcoin clients.  
Core is in no way more 'official' than Classic, Unlimited or XT.

If I made a coin named 'Bitcoin 2', and used almost all of the exact same properties of Bitcoin (21,000,000 coins, 12.5BTC/block, same chain) apart from changed some technical aspects (block size, block speed etc) would that be an 'official' version of Bitcoin? If not, why?

[zimmah]

Why only have the link to bitcoin core at the top, and not classic, unlimited and XT as well?    

It's easy to remain the client used by most users if you control the main platform of communication, but this is not decentralized at all.

Bitcoin Knots (https://bitcoinknots.org) for example is listed on Bitcoin.org while others aren't because XT , classic ,unlimited etc... do changes to the network rules which makes them an Altcoin , as simple as that.

None of them violate the core values of bitcoin.

Decentralized ledger, 21million coins, 10 minute transactions. Any other core values?      

The only one violating the core value of decentralization is Core, because they are actively trying to manipulate many platforms in order to gain control, and thereby centralizing bitcoin.   

If you truly want decentralization create your own forum. By putting all coins in one forum is centralization.

There are multiple forums, but like many things, the power of the forum is the network. Core somehow managed to get hold of the main communication platforms (this forum and /r/bitcoin) and is leveragng that control to centralize bitcoin and act like the only 'legitimate' developers. Thus, centralization is happening.

Technically, until a Bitcoin fork obtains consensus, it is an alt chain.

All chains should have a fair chance as long as they don't violate bitcoins core values. One of the most important values is decentralization. Core is threatening this core value.   

No one is stopping any one else from choosing a different version of Bitcoin to use, especially not the forum.

No but they are using the power of propaganda to make Core seem like the only 'official' client. There are other clients out there that are just as 'official' and legitimate. And arguable healthier for bitcoins longterm   
survival.

If I made a coin named 'Bitcoin 2', and used almost all of the exact same properties of Bitcoin (21,000,000 coins, 12.5BTC/block, same chain) apart from changed some technical aspects (block size, block speed etc) would that be an 'official' version of Bitcoin? If not, why?

As long as it's seeded from the genesis block, and if it reverts any already existing transactions the rules for it need to be consistent with itself. (And I am sure you'd need good reasons to do so, or else you wouldn't get support).

[achow101]

None of them violate the core values of bitcoin.

Decentralized ledger, 21million coins, 10 minute transactions. Any other core values?      

Just because they follow the same core values does not mean that they are the same coin. Just look at any shitcoin forked from Bitcoin, they have the same core values, but they are not Bitcoin.

What matters are the consensus rules. To be Bitcoin, you must use the exact same consensus rules. XT, Classic, and BU do not use the exact some consensus rules. They have different consensus rules for a hard fork when certain bits in the version are set and a certain threshold is reached. Those are not the exact same consensus rules as defined by the reference implementation, thus they are an altcoin. It does not matter that they are compatible with Bitcoin, they are, by definition, not Bitcoin.

[zimmah]

None of them violate the core values of bitcoin.

Decentralized ledger, 21million coins, 10 minute transactions. Any other core values?      

Just because they follow the same core values does not mean that they are the same coin. Just look at any shitcoin forked from Bitcoin, they have the same core values, but they are not Bitcoin.

What matters are the consensus rules. To be Bitcoin, you must use the exact same consensus rules. XT, Classic, and BU do not use the exact some consensus rules. They have different consensus rules for a hard fork when certain bits in the version are set and a certain threshold is reached. Those are not the exact same consensus rules as defined by the reference implementation, thus they are an altcoin. It does not matter that they are compatible with Bitcoin, they are, by definition, not Bitcoin.

A fork is to allow users to choose and reach consensus. That's why bitcoin is decentralized. So that not 1 group of people has full control over bitcoin.

If you only allow 1 client the spotlight, many people won't even know they have a choice.

It's easy to claim you have consensus when you are censoring all competition. But I'm sure if other clients were given equal chance, the consensus would shift towards one of them.

We need to be fair to the users, and let them know they have a choice. And provide them the tools they need to make their voice heard. Only then we can truly claim to be decentralized.

[Lauda]

This was beaten to death back in the early days of Classic. You should use the search function or look around this sub-forum (although it may take time to find this). Theymos has stated their reasoning, and they do not agree with those 'implementations'.

It's easy to claim you have consensus when you are censoring all competition. But I'm sure if other clients were given equal chance, the consensus would shift towards one of them.

Shift towards what exactly, an implementation that has even a much smaller team and even less peer review like Classic? IIRC theymos labeled it as an altcoin back in the day.
BU may be different. Last time I checked they didn't have a faulty fork proposal implemented(?).

[Sylon]

Why only have the link to bitcoin core at the top, and not classic, unlimited and XT as well?

Because those are altcoins, and this forum is called Bitcoin Talk.

[Cøbra]

We need to be fair to the users, and let them know they have a choice. And provide them the tools they need to make their voice heard. Only then we can truly claim to be decentralized.

It's strange that you think most active Bitcoin users aren't aware of projects like Classic, XT, etc. Everyone has heard of them, and the block size issue has been argued to death, and yet most users continue to support Core's road map for scalability. Users have made their choice already.

[inca]

We need to be fair to the users, and let them know they have a choice. And provide them the tools they need to make their voice heard. Only then we can truly claim to be decentralized.

It's strange that you think most active Bitcoin users aren't aware of projects like Classic, XT, etc. Everyone has heard of them, and the block size issue has been argued to death, and yet most users continue to support Core's road map for scalability. Users have made their choice already.

Ah it's theymos' alt cobra to the rescue. 

Given you have been censoring discussion on any alternative clients who knows what most active bitcoin users are aware of. It is just electronic cash to most people. Still you have singlehandedly contributed to the decline of market share bitcoin holds within the ecosystem. Oh and lost any vestiges of credibility you ever held in the cryptocurrency space :-)

[Atheros]

Why only have the link to bitcoin core at the top, and not classic, unlimited and XT as well?

Because those are altcoins, and this forum is called Bitcoin Talk.

I'm not sure if you are serious but just so that newbies have better information, if I can use software to spend and receive bitcoins then the software, at a high level, is Bitcoin. Classic, unlimited, and XT are Bitcoin forks and become "Bitcoin" if enough people believe them to be. They fork not only the codebase but would also fork the Bitcoin blockchain. Even if one of the forks dies, including the old fork we are all currently using, the bitcoins you held before the fork would continue to function as bitcoins albiet with some changes due to the different code of the new fork. So far in Bitcoin history this has already happened twice and it continues to be the case that the current newest fork is the one we all call "Bitcoin". The only difference is that those two prior forks were non-contentious and the old forks died out quickly.

On the other hand, if someone forks the Bitcoin codebase and starts it over with a new blockchain then I cannot spend and receive bitcoins using it. It is thus an altcoin.

So let us please maintain some credibility among ourselves and just admit that the reason that Classic, XT, and others aren't allowed is because the administrator of this forum, theymos, believes that Bitcoin should not be forked at the current time at least in such a way as the authors of Classic and XT have proposed and he has chosen to have the forum reflect that belief.

[Ai7xpressTV]

Because Bitcoin Talk is for  altcoins.

[bitpop]

Better this than vers forum pumping etherium and casinos. But I'm still with core and await segwit and lightening.

[cypherblock]

What matters are the consensus rules. To be Bitcoin, you must use the exact same consensus rules. XT, Classic, and BU do not use the exact some consensus rules. They have different consensus rules for a hard fork when certain bits in the version are set and a certain threshold is reached. Those are not the exact same consensus rules as defined by the reference implementation, thus they are an altcoin. It does not matter that they are compatible with Bitcoin, they are, by definition, not Bitcoin.

Don't forget, every soft fork changes the consensus rules. For instance we could soft fork to make the max block size 500kb. We can soft fork, to make it impossible for un upgraded nodes to validate transactions but have them still think they are valid.

[Gaby_64]

Bitcoin is bitcoin because of the blockchain, if an alternate implementation continues the same blockchain, it is Bitcoin

[gentlemand]

This forum is owned by humans. Humans have points of view. Sticking to Core is their point of view. Nothing's neutral.