Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists

[Carlton Banks]

ooooh so github now own bitcoin.. not the community, not the devs, not blockstream not even satoshi.. but github owns bitcoin?
hmm lets check that out

Nope, Github are the repo platform, not the repo itself.

Your trolling is terrible, and you never have a substantive argument, your only recourse is always to distort or subvert the truth as your rhetoric. That's why you're losing, because you're selling a lie.

[DooMAD]

The place were the code is published is private. Not the code itself.

If the code was private, it couldn't be open sourced, that's called proprietary code. Good luck with winning any future arguments with cheap semantic tricks

If you want to have an entirely separate argument about what Core do with their code, you're more than welcome to.  They are free to publish whatever code they wish and no one is in a position to stop them.  They are also free to accept or deny code contributions from any individual and no one is in a position to stop them.  In fact, I'm pretty sure we agree on that part.  

But the argument you originally made is that Bitcoin is not a free and open market.  This is disproven by the simple fact that there are competing Bitcoin protocols right now.  Anyone is free to release their own implementation of the Bitcoin client with any modifications they so choose.  If the market decides overwhelmingly that the modified code is superior, that's the code Bitcoin then adopts.  It's beautiful.  I wouldn't change it for the world.  

[franky1]

ooooh so github now own bitcoin.. not the community, not the devs, not blockstream not even satoshi.. but github owns bitcoin?
hmm lets check that out

Nope, Github are the repo platform, not the repo itself.

Your trolling is terrible, and you never have a substantive argument, your only recourse is always to distort or subvert the truth as your rhetoric. That's why you're losing, because you're selling a lie.

did you not read the terms of github.. i pasted it in the last post.

[Carlton Banks]

If you want to have an entirely separate argument about what Core do with their code, you're more than welcome to.  They are free to publish whatever code they wish and no one is in a position to stop them.  They are also free to accept or deny code contributions from any individual and no one is in a position to stop them.  In fact, I'm pretty sure we agree on that part.  

But the argument you originally made is that Bitcoin is not a free and open market.  This is disproven by the simple fact that there are competing Bitcoin protocols right now.  Anyone is free to release their own implementation of the Bitcoin client with any modifications they so choose.  If the market decides overwhelmingly that the modified code is superior, that's the code Bitcoin then adopts.  It's beautiful.  I wouldn't change it for the world.  

Carefully worded, but not a true description of what's really happening.

Describing the fork clients as "competing" protocols implies there might be room for whichever protocol loses the competition. You know as well as I that there is no 2nd and 3rd place if you fork the Bitcoin network to a different protocol, so it's a zero sum game. This is not equivalent to a free market competition, as there is only one bed to sleep in. It's equivalent to a majority led compulsory purchase order "not your house any more, get out". Your argument is wrong, it does not observe the free market or property rights.

If you were really interested in an actual free market, you'd be arguing for a scenario that actually conforms to free market dynamics. Stealing someone else's project doesn't count.

[franky1]

If you want to have an entirely separate argument about what Core do with their code, you're more than welcome to.  They are free to publish whatever code they wish and no one is in a position to stop them.  They are also free to accept or deny code contributions from any individual and no one is in a position to stop them.  In fact, I'm pretty sure we agree on that part.  

But the argument you originally made is that Bitcoin is not a free and open market.  This is disproven by the simple fact that there are competing Bitcoin protocols right now.  Anyone is free to release their own implementation of the Bitcoin client with any modifications they so choose.  If the market decides overwhelmingly that the modified code is superior, that's the code Bitcoin then adopts.  It's beautiful.  I wouldn't change it for the world.  

Carefully worded, but not a true description of what's really happening.

Describing the fork clients as "competing" protocols implies there might be room for whichever protocol loses the competition. You know as well as I that there is no 2nd and 3rd place if you fork the Bitcoin network to a different protocol, so it's a zero sum game. This is not equivalent to a free market competition, as there is only one bed to sleep in. It's equivalent to a majority led compulsory purchase order "not your house any more, get out". Your argument is wrong, it does not observe the free market or property rights.

If you were really interested in an actual free market, you'd be arguing for a scenario that actually conforms to free market dynamics. Stealing someone else's project doesn't count.

carlton wants dictatorship so that only the dictator agrees to their own rules in a circle jerk and then changes things without consent.

carlton never thinks about real consensus and a community compromise, you know real consensus. where it is not one or the other but general agreement of the rules by the majority.

carlton has lost the libertarian mindset (though im starting to think he never had it).. each day he digs a hole a little deeper and cant back up his points.
even the copyright and patent arguments he tried suggesting failed him.

cant wait for his next bait and switch argument to dig himself a little deeper
carlton you love the capitalist, corporate control of a money system. so go play with fiat. you will be happier living a 100% fiat lifestyle

[Carlton Banks]

Maybe you could address just one point in my post, instead of none of them? That's a real winning argument there Franky, one that bears no relation to what the other party said?

Um, yeah. Maybe you should try harder, I know I've ripped on you for trying too hard in the past, but that's not even C grade for you Franky

[franky1]

i did address it. heck i went back and emboldened underlined it to show where your
" You know as well as I that there is no 2nd and 3rd place if you fork the Bitcoin network to a different protocol, so it's a zero sum game. "
falls apart

its not a game of 1 winner. its a game of diverse teams that should discuss and debate what needs to change and come to a majority compromise they are all happy with. this prevents a dictatorship and instead keeps the decentralized CONSENSUS, which has been rule one of bitcoins ethos

trying to claim bitcoin has always been a dictatorship and has never had consensus is your failing. but i can see why you try to assume it.. because you want a dictatorship

ill say it one more time CONSENSUS should never be baited and switched to dictatorship. otherwise bitcoin is no better than fiat

[calkob]

the early libertarian types are to busy selling their thousands of bitcoin to have time to be on this forum,  and the other point about increasing the total supply has got next to no support if any at all.....

[DooMAD]

If you want to have an entirely separate argument about what Core do with their code, you're more than welcome to.  They are free to publish whatever code they wish and no one is in a position to stop them.  They are also free to accept or deny code contributions from any individual and no one is in a position to stop them.  In fact, I'm pretty sure we agree on that part.  

But the argument you originally made is that Bitcoin is not a free and open market.  This is disproven by the simple fact that there are competing Bitcoin protocols right now.  Anyone is free to release their own implementation of the Bitcoin client with any modifications they so choose.  If the market decides overwhelmingly that the modified code is superior, that's the code Bitcoin then adopts.  It's beautiful.  I wouldn't change it for the world.  

Carefully worded, but not a true description of what's really happening.

Describing the fork clients as "competing" protocols implies there might be room for whichever protocol loses the competition. You know as well as I that there is no 2nd and 3rd place if you fork the Bitcoin network to a different protocol, so it's a zero sum game. This is not equivalent to a free market competition, as there is only one bed to sleep in. It's equivalent to a majority led compulsory purchase order "not your house any more, get out". Your argument is wrong, it does not observe the free market or property rights.

If you were really interested in an actual free market, you'd be arguing for a scenario that actually conforms to free market dynamics. Stealing someone else's project doesn't count.

If there is a fork, the "losing" side is free to join the new consensus and propose revisions of their own from there.  Protocols can perpetually compete assuming developers don't decide to pursue a new, incompatible chain and create an altcoin.  You know, that thing you're currently encouraging developers of alternative clients at the moment to do.  It's not "stealing someone else's project", as the developers of alternative clients are simply publishing code.  There's no identifiable act of theft within that process.  Also, it's stated on just about every Bitcoin related resource that no company or individual is in control of Bitcoin.  Ergo, you can't seize control of something that no one directly controls.  Ultimately it's up to the miners and node operators as to whose code governs the protocol.  

Also, it's irrelevant whether you agree with me or not, because it's not going to change the fact that we have a free and open system where anyone can modify the code as they see fit and users are free to run whatever code they want.

[Carlton Banks]

i did address it. heck i went back and emboldened underlined it to show where your
" You know as well as I that there is no 2nd and 3rd place if you fork the Bitcoin network to a different protocol, so it's a zero sum game. "
falls apart

its not a game of 1 winner. its a game of diverse teams that should discuss and debate what needs to change and come to a majority compromise they are all happy with so that there is no dictator but a decentralized CONSENSUS

It is a game of 1 winner, you can't have competing consensus rules running simultanously, because no system can operate using 2 sets of competing rules. Duh.


Franky "Daaaaaaaad, can I have Bluuuuuuue Power Ranger for Christmas?"
FrankyDad "no you little turd, your Mother and I have already reached a consensus on this"
Franky "But Daaaaaaaaad, consensus means a disagreement!"

[franky1]

i did address it. heck i went back and emboldened underlined it to show where your
" You know as well as I that there is no 2nd and 3rd place if you fork the Bitcoin network to a different protocol, so it's a zero sum game. "
falls apart

its not a game of 1 winner. its a game of diverse teams that should discuss and debate what needs to change and come to a majority compromise they are all happy with so that there is no dictator but a decentralized CONSENSUS

It is a game of 1 winner, you can't have competing consensus rules running simultanously, because no system can operate using 2 sets of competing rules. Duh.


Franky "Daaaaaaaad, can I have Bluuuuuuue Power Ranger for Christmas?"
FrankyDad "no you little turd, your Mother and I have already reached a consensus on this"
Franky "But Daaaaaaaaad, consensus means a disagreement!"

LOL epic fail
"you can't have competing consensus rules running simultanously"

yet, there are already many implementations running right now.

go play with fiat and marry banker. you really do not understand bitcoin

[Carlton Banks]

Also, it's irrelevant whether you agree with me or not, because it's not going to change the fact that we have a free and open system where anyone can modify the code as they see fit and users are free to run whatever code they want.

Well, that's the end of your argument, isn't it.

Because several attempts have already been made to release code that, okay, doesn't steal the project, but destroys the network the project runs on, in favour of a re-designed network. And the XT attempt included code to prevent future hard forks that weren't Hearn approved. And no-one bought the premise that either of those protocol redesigns offered something valuable, and so the fork didn't happen.



As for your more desperate point ("pursue a new, incompatible chain and create an altcoin"), pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

We both know it's a soft fork. We both know that means the chain is compatible, and certainly not new, it's the same chain. We both know that this means old clients can use old features, but not new ones. Hmmmmm, it's almost as if every other soft fork that's been activated has those properties, and Segwit is no different.

So, your argument is fine, as long as you agree that Bitcoin is now on something like it's 6th or 7th incompatible altcoin reiteration, lol. Which means your point is invalid, as soft-forking changes have happened many times already without incident.

[Carlton Banks]

LOL epic fail
"you can't have competing consensus rules running simultanously"

yet, there are already many implementations running right now.

go play with fiat and marry banker. you really do not understand bitcoin

Those implementations aren't running their changed rules on the actual Bitcoin network. They're running with Bitcoin Core rules. They could run their own rules, if they were actually on a separate network. But they're not, they're on the Bitcoin network.

[DooMAD]

Also, it's irrelevant whether you agree with me or not, because it's not going to change the fact that we have a free and open system where anyone can modify the code as they see fit and users are free to run whatever code they want.

Well, that's the end of your argument, isn't it.

Because several attempts have already been made to release code that, okay, doesn't steal the project, but destroys the network the project runs on, in favour of a re-designed network. And the XT attempt included code to prevent future hard forks that weren't Hearn approved. And no-one bought the premise that either of those protocol redesigns offered something valuable, and so the fork didn't happen.

And I'll stand by the market making that decision.  But you have to stand by the fact that the market could make a different decision in future and that Core's implementation may not always be the consensus.  Or admit you're a protectionist apologist.  One of the two.  

As for your more desperate point ("pursue a new, incompatible chain and create an altcoin"), pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

We both know it's a soft fork. We both know that means the chain is compatible, and certainly not new, it's the same chain. We both know that this means old clients can use old features, but not new ones. Hmmmmm, it's almost as if every other soft fork that's been activated has those properties, and Segwit is no different.

Wasn't even talking about Segwit.  I was alluding to your recent posts along the lines of this one:

how come no-one is coding that up into a super Bitcoin-killing altcoin? They'd be rich, wouldn't they?

and again in this very thread:

Or, (and I've never heard a reply to this point) CODE UP YOUR BITCOIN KILLER AS A NEW CRYPTOCURRENCY.

You keep suggesting developers of alternative clients should pursue their own chain because you're terrified of a little competition on this one.  I'm suggesting that post fork, all developers are welcome to tag along, follow the longest chain and keep releasing their own clients, that, while compatible with the new consensus, can still propose changes to the rules of the network.  Post fork (whether soft or hard), it's not a zero-sum game if dev teams are willing to carry on competing.  Free and open.  Glorious.

[Carlton Banks]

Also, it's irrelevant whether you agree with me or not, because it's not going to change the fact that we have a free and open system where anyone can modify the code as they see fit and users are free to run whatever code they want.

Well, that's the end of your argument, isn't it.

Because several attempts have already been made to release code that, okay, doesn't steal the project, but destroys the network the project runs on, in favour of a re-designed network. And the XT attempt included code to prevent future hard forks that weren't Hearn approved. And no-one bought the premise that either of those protocol redesigns offered something valuable, and so the fork didn't happen.

And I'll stand by the market making that decision.  But you have to stand by the fact that the market could make a different decision in future and that Core's implementation may not always be the consensus.  Or admit you're a protectionist apologist.  One of the two.  

Don't you think it may suit your free-market rhetoric better if I was allowed to choose from a range of options that aren't narrowly defined for the benefit of your argument?

And your "and I'll stand by the market's decision" comment is just dripping with conceit. You know as well as I do that XT and Classic were about control of the repo, not about some technical design dispute.

You keep suggesting developers of alternative clients should pursue their own chain because you're terrified of a little competition on this one.  I'm suggesting that post fork, all developers are welcome to tag along, follow the longest chain and keep releasing their own clients, that, while compatible with the new consensus, can still propose changes to the rules of the network.  Post fork (whether soft or hard), it's not a zero-sum game if dev teams are willing to carry on competing.  Free and open.  Glorious.

Why would anyone need to compete with Bitcoin on it's own chain if their coin is better?

Why don't you believe in a real competition, you know, where there are more than 2 players on the court playing simultaneously? Ever seen a tennis match where one player serves an ace to the other, and the match is immediately declared won?

You're suggesting that the Bitcoin user base bets the farm on an untested codebase, never operated in the wild, running an entire economy? Can you see why a rational Bitcoin user wouldn't be interested in experimenting like that?

It might just be a more rigorous approach to never bet on contentious forks, and just bet on promising altcoins instead. Because if the market makes a poor choice of fork, that altcoin is going to be all you've got left.

[franky1]

You're suggesting that the Bitcoin user base bets the farm on an untested codebase, never operated in the wild, running an entire economy? Can you see why a rational Bitcoin user wouldn't be interested in experimenting like that?

It might just be a more rigorous approach to never bet on contentious forks, and just bet on promising altcoins instead. Because if the market makes a poor choice of fork, that altcoin is going to be all you've got left.

im laughing at the hypocrisy.

other implementations have code available since last year..
even today core doesnt have live segwit code today.

real segwit code has not been running on bitcoin mainnet.
yet many implementations have been running 2mb block rule on bitcoin mainnet since last year
2mb implementations dont force blocks over 1mb. they instead accept blocks under 2mb. meaning all blocks 0byte-999kb are acceptable too

also carlton you are confusing a contentious fork with a consensus fork.
no one has proposed a contentious fork. every implementation has proposed a consensus fork. so why are you even trying to suggest contentious forks are what the debate is about.

contentious fork and consensus fork are two different things.. please research. please learn or please go back to fiat.
we already know you want to increase the number of minable units, extending mining completion from the year 2141 to atleast the years 2181. so how about you go play around with monero and mess with moneros rules.. with your friends you are loyal too.

afterall if you feel you have the right to tell others to go away, then we have the right to tell you the same too.

but anyway your post are scraping the bottom of the barrel and really running dry of valid points. so its time to just move on. i cant see you adding anything valid to this topic.

have a good day

[DooMAD]

Because several attempts have already been made to release code that, okay, doesn't steal the project, but destroys the network the project runs on, in favour of a re-designed network. And the XT attempt included code to prevent future hard forks that weren't Hearn approved. And no-one bought the premise that either of those protocol redesigns offered something valuable, and so the fork didn't happen.

And I'll stand by the market making that decision.  But you have to stand by the fact that the market could make a different decision in future and that Core's implementation may not always be the consensus.  Or admit you're a protectionist apologist.  One of the two.  

Don't you think it may suit your free-market rhetoric better if I was allowed to choose from a range of options that aren't narrowly defined for the benefit of your argument?

Maybe, but I suspect anyone reading this will have decided for themselves already.  

At least the OP is clearly willing to openly profess their protectionist apologist tendencies.  You seem to be in denial.  

You keep suggesting developers of alternative clients should pursue their own chain because you're terrified of a little competition on this one.  I'm suggesting that post fork, all developers are welcome to tag along, follow the longest chain and keep releasing their own clients, that, while compatible with the new consensus, can still propose changes to the rules of the network.  Post fork (whether soft or hard), it's not a zero-sum game if dev teams are willing to carry on competing.  Free and open.  Glorious.

Why would anyone need to compete with Bitcoin on it's own chain if their coin is better?

You're welcome to question why anyone would need to compete with Core on the current chain, but it's not my place to answer.  Some people want to and they're entirely free to do so.  Are you saying you don't want them having that right?  Would you willingly take away their freedom to do it if you could?  If so, it doesn't strike me as very liberal of you.

[Carlton Banks]

other implementations have code available since last year..
even today core doesnt have live segwit code today.

real segwit code has not been running on bitcoin mainnet.
yet many implementations have been running 2mb block rule on bitcoin mainnet since last year

Having code available isn't any good if no-one on the network you're trying to hijack is willing to let it happen. If alternatives are running 2MB block rules, where are all the 2MB blocks?

Oh that's right, Core is the network, and those competing protocol clients run Core's rules. That means they can't run their rules on the Bitcoin network, as they've can't make valid blocks to apply the rule to. And they've never been tested on a 10 billion dollar economy, but they have been tested in Franky's basement room testnet, connected up to a handful of others, lol

[Carlton Banks]

At least the OP is clearly willing to openly profess their protectionist apologist tendencies.  You seem to be in denial.

You seem to be being provocative for it's own sake, which is a working definition of internet trolling.

You keep suggesting developers of alternative clients should pursue their own chain because you're terrified of a little competition on this one.  I'm suggesting that post fork, all developers are welcome to tag along, follow the longest chain and keep releasing their own clients, that, while compatible with the new consensus, can still propose changes to the rules of the network.  Post fork (whether soft or hard), it's not a zero-sum game if dev teams are willing to carry on competing.  Free and open.  Glorious.

Why would anyone need to compete with Bitcoin on it's own chain if their coin is better?

You're welcome to question why anyone would need to compete with Core on the current chain, but it's not my place to answer.  Some people want to and they're entirely free to do so.  Are you saying you don't want them having that right?  Would you willingly take away their freedom to do it if you could?  If so, it doesn't strike me as very liberal of you.

It is your place to answer, you're the person I asked. And your poetic tinged bohemianist smoke-screen isn't altering the fact that you are avoiding the question because you don't like the answer.

And people are, of course, entirely free to do all sorts of foolish things. Free choices are not necessarily good choices.

[Kakmakr]

Blame the mining giants, like most do these days. According to the West, every bad thing in Bitcoin is linked to the Chinese.

"The socialist market economy is the economic model employed by the People's Republic of China. It is based on the dominance of the state-owned sector and an open-market economy, and has its origins in the Chinese economic reforms introduced under Deng Xiaoping."

I only see : Capitalism

"Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets."