Where would Bitcoin be without XT and Unlimited?

[xdrpx]

Bitcoin wouldn't be affected if Bitcoin XT and Unlimited weren't there. There would be more people at an agreement to stick to Bitcoin Core and the suggested upscaling methods by Bitcoin core team. Sadly, not all would have agreed on what was happening and few decided on having Bigger blocks (2MB, 8MB etc...) and attempted to get miners to run Bitcoin XT or classic or Unlimited so as to get a majority of the miners to mine larger blocks. But unfortunately that didn't work out well. Also, you'll notice a decline in Bitcoin XT/Classic/unlimited nodes.

[franky1]

I was just wondering, where Bitcoin would have been, if Satoshi was still around?

FYI Satoshi was not particularly good in coding, and Bitcoin is probably much better off without a leader (although Satoshi may be around under a different alias).

You mean effective in creating bugs, like the one that broke the Bitcoin supply?

much like Pieter Wuille implemented levelDB before actually doing any backward compatibility bug tests to see how it would effect the blockchain in 2013.. and whooops it split the chain..

0.8 leveldb bug

in short
pieter wuille is not your god either, even if he is paid to be

[franky1]

to force a controversial hardfork by launching a huge FUD campaign were a total failure. However the constant disparagement of Core developers by an army of trolls and paid shills were a significant emotional burden for progress. I'm grateful, that Core developers did withstand the psychological pressure forced on them and did what's in the best interest of all freedom-loving Bitcoiners.

ya.ya.yo!

lol you do know that its only gmaxwell and chums wanting other implementations to controversially split. so core can swap out freedom for control

the other implementations want to consensually upgrade the network within a single network of diversity and independent choice.
seems you have been fed the wrong information.

oh and look at who is paying the core devs.. 93+ banks are now in the same group with contracts with gmaxwell and his chums.

goodluck trying to bait all of blockstreams faults as (fake) faults of anything not core related. it is obvious to see you want dictatorship not freedom or diversity.

[jbreher]

Gavin and Hearn and all these people trying to sabotage Bitcoin, would have had their asses whipped. What do you say?

I say that, if you think that Gavin and Hearn were trying to sabotage Bitcoin, it only goes to show how effective control over a semi-public communication channel can be in spreading disinformation.

[Yakamoto]

Gavin and Hearn and all these people trying to sabotage Bitcoin, would have had their asses whipped. What do you say?

I say that, if you think that Gavin and Hearn were trying to sabotage Bitcoin, it only goes to show how effective control over a semi-public communication channel can be in spreading disinformation.

Semi-public communication is now one of the most, if not THE most effective means of communication and spreading opinions or information. We're seeing websites becoming more and more fringe and tailored to a specific idea. Even in the recent presidential election for the US these websites had a major impact on the distribution of information.

[Kakmakr]

Satoshi was not a dictator, and his biggest mistake was to allow Gavin Andresen to participate in this experiment. If Gavin did not run to his masters, Satoshi would most probably still be around. Satoshi realized when these agencies got involved the experiment would fail, so he went dark.

Satoshi is not here to fight for Bitcoin, and it is now our duty to defend it against the people who wants it to fail. We should consider this as phase 1 in the attacks, because the other Blockchain based Ledgers are still under development and when they are done, we will see phase 2. ^hmmmmm^

the banking cartels dominance is already apparent, hyperledger is a "phase 2 attack"..

guess whos building it.. blockstream

the banking cartel want bitcoin to fail. they are doing it slowly and purposefully
much like boiling a frog by putting it in cold water and slowly heading it so that it doesnt jump around, rather than throwing it in hot water. and shocking it to jump around

instead of limiting sigops to control spam or other CODE/tech methods.. they use fee wars and use that as bait to promote LN
(rustyrusssel of blockstream heading it up)
right now half a dozen third world countries wont use bitcoin because a TX fee alone is more than an hours labour in their country.

as for the switch to LN. those making it(blockstream/banking cartel) had a round table meetup in milan and suggested a 0.006btc deposit fee to use LN for 10 days.. as an acceptable fee
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.html
them trying to figure out how to stop spamming on LN.
go to "results" and the spreadsheet shows using fees.
(prepaid tab) 0.006btc prepaid. locktime 864000seconds (10 days) at todays prices thats over $4.20 prepay fee (100 minimum wage hours labour in developing countries)

standard tricks of banking cartels, use economics to control everything. rather than rational and acceptable code

economics:
based on stats of real world uses of an average person using a credit card or buying something from a shop, is 42 times a month. (14 times per 10 days)
that 0.006 deposit (over $4 at todays valuation) just to use it 14 times(average real world usage)... is yet another barrier of entry.

so dont think LN is the utopia you think it is..
as for the next bait and switch they will propose (more reasons not to expand real bitcoin onchain capacity) will be sidechains.

look at blockstreams patent for BITCOIN sidechains
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&s1=%22bitcoin%22&p=1&OS=%22blockchain%22&RS=%22bitcoin%22

yes

By being linked to Bitcoin's currency via two-way pegs,

they are trying remove the openness of what people can and cannot do with bitcoin by making any bitcoin sidechain property of Gmaxwell and adam back by default.

and guess what else. these sidechains are "demurrage" meaning your holdings of the sidchain token slowly disapears over time, and they get to keep the bitcoin that they lock you out from.

so while screwing with transaction fees decades befor they are important. is crippling bitcoin
so while delaying/holding off on REAL bitcoin capacity growth they are crippling bitcoin

know your enemy

blockstream came about in 2013
bitcoin-core came about in 2013

before blockstream it was bitcoin-qt, which anyone could tinker with
gmaxwell and many others have been paid to go against the bitcoin ethos and instead forfil contractual obligations

know your enemy

dont give core(blockstream contractors and 90+ unpaid spell checker interns) ultimate power of dictatorship.
instead get bitcoin back to being a decentralised and diverse open network of free-choice and no barriers.

we should not rely on those offchain plans as the future of bitcoin. especially in the hands of the bankers. especially when its so obvious what the end game is

Ok Franky you make a good point there, but would you care explaining what their motives would be, to do this? Do you think they will deliberately code something that might cripple Bitcoin in the future to pave the way for Hyperledger? If they are doing this, why are people accepting this and what prevents them from shifting to a better implementation or even a Alt coin, if this happens?

They will hurt their reputation with a Bait n switch like this and people will not support Hyperledger, once they realize what they have done. 

[Wind_FURY]

I was just wondering, where Bitcoin would have been, if Satoshi was still around? Would Satoshi have tolerated all this bickering and fighting

about Bitcoin XT or Unlimited? Would Satoshi have scaled quicker? What would the Block size have been? I think Satoshi would have moved

forward a lot quicker than the current developers. Satoshi's code was sloppy, but it was effective. Gavin and Hearn and all these people trying

to sabotage Bitcoin, would have had their asses whipped. What do you say?

Was it not Satoshi himself that placed the 1mb hard cap on the size of the blocks? You are here longer than me. So I ask you, why do you think he did it? For me, at first impression it would because Satoshi might be already be getting concerned about the size of the blockchain and to solve the scalability problem, Bitcoin must take a more conservative route than a reckless one. But what do you think?

[franky1]

Ok Franky you make a good point there, but would you care explaining what their motives would be, to do this? Do you think they will deliberately code something that might cripple Bitcoin in the future to pave the way for Hyperledger? If they are doing this, why are people accepting this and what prevents them from shifting to a better implementation or even a Alt coin, if this happens?

They will hurt their reputation with a Bait n switch like this and people will not support Hyperledger, once they realize what they have done.  

blockstream dont care or need "bitcoin rep".. no one is paying them bitcoins to code bitcoin. they dont want rep from the bitcoin community long term.
motive:
they have $90mill and banker rep..which is their long term thing they want to keep. they see bitcoin as just "the experiment" done voluntarily and that calling it "an experiment" shows their mindset of desire to fail

as for the bitcoin community
by people supporting the idea of LN, sidechains.. people are NAIVELY supporting hyperledger(the banks), without knowing it.
(guess who is going to run the sidchains. guess who is going to dual-sign as the hub people channel to)

actions:
much of it rvved up in early spring this year with the R3CKED campaign. gmaxwell while actually paid by R3. was shouting to everyone to hate gavin, and hate all other implementations.
including classic, bu and dozen others..
Edit. i separated out hearne*, bitcoinj and xt, the next paragraph explains why

bitcoinJ is now blockstream friendly so dont expect unbasied diverse code. *hearne is part of the r3/blockstream bait and switch
blockstream also bought up a few other wallet services and blockexplorers into the banking cartel.. (check out hyperledger partners/members for familiar names)
bitcoin knots is blockstream friendly. programmed by a blockstream contractor (Luke JR) to fake an unbiased implementation but obviously coded segwit instead of his pledge for true capacity.

anyway, the plan was and still is to get all non blockstream controlled nodes to FORK to an alt. using any tactic they can to gain dominance.. gmaxwell was pushing anything not blockstream friendly as the nasty bankers or centralizers or bigblockers(hypocrisy bait and switch). fully knowing where gmaxwell was getting his own funding from and knowing his own end goals.

as for the term bigblockers.. funny that blockstream now want 4mb weight for the confidential features while still limited transaction capacity in the base at 1mb. (1mb base, 0.8mb witness, 2.2mb other features=4mb weight)

4mb is more then 2mb.. so cores 4mb is the real bigblockers

hypocrisy has been loud

here february 9th 2016
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2016/02/linux-foundation-s-hyperledger-project-announces-30-founding

The intent to form the Hyperledger Project, an open source project to advance the blockchain digital technology for recording and verifying transactions, was announced at the end of 2015. Founding members of the initiative represent a diverse group of stakeholders, including: ABN AMRO, Accenture, ANZ Bank, Blockchain, BNY Mellon, Calastone, Cisco, CLS, CME Group, ConsenSys, Credits, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), Deutsche Börse Group, Digital Asset Holdings, Fujitsu Limited, Guardtime, Hitachi, IBM, Intel, IntellectEU, J.P. Morgan, NEC, NTT DATA, R3, Red Hat, State Street, SWIFT, Symbiont, VMware and Wells Fargo.  

Global Business Leaders Contribute to Hyperledger

Since announcing the intent to form in December, the Hyperledger Project has received proposed code and technology contributions from several companies, including Blockstream, Digital Asset, IBM and Ripple. Other community members are contemplating contributions of their own.

started in january 2016
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.0

yes blockstream R3 and hyperledger had contracts signed late 2015 even before blockstream paid and organised the scaling bitcoin event, which resulted in THEIR "roadmap" for bitcoin.

and in january they seen there were people who did not like the banker plans.. so blockstream "flipped the script" to make the ones not liking the banker plans, into being accused of being the 'bankers' to hide blockstreams own banker controls and contracts.(bait and switch)

gmaxwell even with getting r3 funding was treating non blockstreamers as banksters by getting involved on the r3cked campaign.

wanting anything not blockstream to fork off to an alt so core can dominate.
blockstreams only reason to control core but simultaneously pretend not to control core. is so they can dissolve and abolish core when the endgame has played out and keep the blockstream business unaffected by it.

anyway i digress into the future. lets get back to the past..
the whole try pushing gavin, garzick, hearne, and many others into altcoin land revved up in januray onwards
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11425;sa=showPosts;start=260
page 14 with gmaxwell jumping in the r3cked campaign alot.

other implementations want to use bitcoins consensus of diverse majority work together to upgrade the network as a single chain, while staying diverse, decentralized and independent nodes..
but gmaxwell hates the idea of not having blockstream and 90 unpaid spellchecker interns in total dominant control of bitcoins future

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral

[arcanaaerobics]

I was just wondering, where Bitcoin would have been, if Satoshi was still around?

FYI Satoshi was not particularly good in coding, and Bitcoin is probably much better off without a leader (although Satoshi may be around under a different alias).

That's my thought, he's there walking on other shoes and none noticed it and in this way he can take off a good weight from their shoulders.

Or he's dead or in a prison, we will never know...

[Lauda]

much like Pieter Wuille implemented levelDB before actually doing any backward compatibility bug tests to see how it would effect the blockchain in 2013.. and whooops it split the chain..

No. That is entirely different. He's not the only person to blame there, as the code was reviewed by others.

Was it not Satoshi himself that placed the 1mb hard cap on the size of the blocks?

Yes he/she/it did in order to combat spam, the same spam which we're dealing with today.

Or he's dead or in a prison, we will never know...

I'm pretty sure his identity is still sound, so definitely a no on the prison part.

[Kprawn]

Gavin and Hearn and all these people trying to sabotage Bitcoin, would have had their asses whipped. What do you say?

I say that, if you think that Gavin and Hearn were trying to sabotage Bitcoin, it only goes to show how effective control over a semi-public communication channel can be in spreading disinformation.

If you want to make a counter statement, go for it. I am curious to know how a rage quit from Hearn and Gavin's competing technology are

not hurting Bitcoin. To go public and telling people Bitcoin is a failed experiment, is definitely not my idea of someone trying to support the

technology. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/15/mike-hearn-senior-bitcoin-developer-says-currency-failed-experiment

[franky1]

Gavin and Hearn and all these people trying to sabotage Bitcoin, would have had their asses whipped. What do you say?

I say that, if you think that Gavin and Hearn were trying to sabotage Bitcoin, it only goes to show how effective control over a semi-public communication channel can be in spreading disinformation.

If you want to make a counter statement, go for it. I am curious to know how a rage quit from Hearn and Gavin's competing technology are

not hurting Bitcoin. To go public and telling people Bitcoin is a failed experiment, is definitely not my idea of someone trying to support the

technology. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/15/mike-hearn-senior-bitcoin-developer-says-currency-failed-experiment

try not to cast the same brush of hearne against other devs..

hearne works for r3 too..

hearne was another bait and switch

[jbreher]

Gavin and Hearn and all these people trying to sabotage Bitcoin, would have had their asses whipped. What do you say?

I say that, if you think that Gavin and Hearn were trying to sabotage Bitcoin, it only goes to show how effective control over a semi-public communication channel can be in spreading disinformation.

If you want to make a counter statement, go for it. I am curious to know how a rage quit from Hearn and Gavin's competing technology are not hurting Bitcoin. To go public and telling people Bitcoin is a failed experiment, is definitely not my idea of someone trying to support the technology.

OK, let's address each one, shall we?

First, what is 'Gavin's competing technology' and in what manner is it 'hurting Bitcoin'? In what way does such 'hurt' rise to the level of 'sabotage'?

Second, do you believe that Hearn has some sort of responsibility to work on things other than what he desires? Further, what value do you think the term 'rage quit' brings to the discussion? Assuming he legitimately arrived at a personal determination that the weakly-defined governance model -- or any other characteristic -- rendered Bitcoin to be destined for failure, what would you expect him to do - lie to the world at large about what he believes that prospects are? In what way are his comments 'sabotage'?

If your idea of 'sabotage' is synonymous with your definition of 'not supporting', you might expect that others find your communiques puzzling at best.

[franky1]

kprawn i can see your tying to wake up from the propaganda.

but here is something you need to understand about bitcoin.

bitcoin is not a single dot
.
nor ever should be
imagine it like 52 dots(i CBA to use 5200 dots for this demo, but i think you understand the idea)
.............
.............
.............
.............

out of those dots
the majority are run in separate locations by separate people

out of the dots some are fully uptodate(coloured), some are out of date(black)

when it comes to 'locations' needing to be targeted by DDoSers there are upto 52(but not exactly) dots required to hit
when it comes to 'locations' needing to be targeted by file deletion virus there are upto 52(but not exactly) dots required to hit

but,
when it comes to 'diversity' needing to be targeted by bug risks created recently, there are 17 redpurpleorgange, 4 blue, 1 green, (rest are individual)
when it comes to 'diversity' needing to be targeted by trojan risks created recently, there are 17 redpurpleorgange, 4 blue, 1 green, (rest are individual)
when it comes to 'diversity' needing to be targeted by old bugs, there are 42 redpurpleorgangeblack, 4 blue, 1 green, (rest are individual)

when it comes to groups control of rules,
42 (red, orange, purple and black) coded by one group.
6 (blue and black) coded by another group
2 (black) by another group
and the final 2 are individual

when you start to realise 52 dots are not 52 dots, but instead clusters(points of weakness) of less dot. and that instead of a 51%mining attack but a malicious 51%dev attack can happen. you start to see where the risks lay.

location is diverse, but dev diversity is not.
when you realise 42 of 52 dots are coded by a team that has banking interests.
and that team are trying to get 10 dots to fork off to an altcoin. to have 42 of 42 control.. you see the problem

strangely those 10 dots. have never wanted to fork off or wanted the 42 to fork off. they just want there to not be a >51% dev attack/dictatorship.
and instead improve diversity(no >51% single control) where rules only change when the dots(not groups) can in the majority consent to a logical upgrade independently and without group dictatorship.

right now the group that coded the 42 dots, want 42 of 42 dots to all be running red software. and other dots be on a different network
right now the group that coded the 6 dots 2 dots and other 2 dots, want more groups, more diversity and more independent dots

where by each group happily communicate together on one network and change the rules when each dot is happily agreeing to a certain setting independently (consensus)

[franky1]

FYI Satoshi was not particularly good in coding,

Satoshi's code was sloppy, but it was effective.

You mean effective in creating bugs, like the one that broke the Bitcoin supply?

No. That is entirely different. He's not the only person to blame there, as the code was reviewed by others.

love it when lauda can argue with himself and counter his own point with his own defense

[Wind_FURY]

Gavin and Hearn and all these people trying to sabotage Bitcoin, would have had their asses whipped. What do you say?

I say that, if you think that Gavin and Hearn were trying to sabotage Bitcoin, it only goes to show how effective control over a semi-public communication channel can be in spreading disinformation.

If you want to make a counter statement, go for it. I am curious to know how a rage quit from Hearn and Gavin's competing technology are

not hurting Bitcoin. To go public and telling people Bitcoin is a failed experiment, is definitely not my idea of someone trying to support the

technology. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/15/mike-hearn-senior-bitcoin-developer-says-currency-failed-experiment

Yes that was a big mistake and just plain wrong from their part. If only they had not started a smear campaign against the then QT developers and had not done any FUD and instead campaigned for their own argument on why bigger blocks are better, then Gavin and Hearn might still be around and the people might still be listening to them.

[shield132]

I was just wondering, where Bitcoin would have been, if Satoshi was still around?

FYI Satoshi was not particularly good in coding, and Bitcoin is probably much better off without a leader (although Satoshi may be around under a different alias).

Would Satoshi have tolerated all this bickering and fighting about Bitcoin XT or Unlimited?

Even if he/she/it did or did not, it would have changed nothing.

Would Satoshi have scaled quicker?

If he/she/it wanted to kill decentralization, then the answer is probably yes.

What would the Block size have been?

We can only speculate at this point.

Satoshi's code was sloppy, but it was effective.

You mean effective in creating bugs, like the one that broke the Bitcoin supply?

Really? He wasn't good in coding? If now bitcoin is without leader, than why did he leave bitcoin, his creation? PS I think satoshi won't be "it".
I read posts and people says that Gavin and Hearn are trying to sabotage bitcoin, can anyone tell me who are these people? Sorry for my low knowledge in this tast but I am very interested in it.

[franky1]

Really? He wasn't good in coding? If now bitcoin is without leader, than why did he leave bitcoin, his creation? PS I think satoshi won't be "it".
I read posts and people says that Gavin and Hearn are trying to sabotage bitcoin, can anyone tell me who are these people? Sorry for my low knowledge in this tast but I am very interested in it.

from 2009 there were many independent people working on bitcoin, they were compiling their own implementations and helping each other with new features and bug fixes. where sourceforge was one of many, but the most popular location of the code. but some had their own locations too, which was advisable

as it approached 2010 more people joined and helped.
satoshi disappeared by the end of the year when bitcoin gained negative press as drug currency and devs were being slated as government plants.

in 2011 github became one of the locations aswell as sourceforge and other places as the main download locations.

by the time it got to 2013 (2 years after satoshi left) github became the popular download location. but people still had their own versions in other download locations.

2013 github.com/bitcoin got rebranded into bitcoin core, and suddenly they seen themselves not as independent individuals but as a power house. between 2013-2015 several people got peed off that it was turning into a power house and some left for different reasons

a few notable names were either pushed out, deemed negative to the power house, moved off as a bait and switch. and many other dramatic things.

mike hearn: owned bitcoinJ and started up XT with other devs and sourced some VC funding (hindsight: was a bait and switch when the bankers were trying to gain control of bitcoin they linked themselves to blockstream, bitcoinj and XT).
it was a bait and switch because blockstream-core devs were attacking XT as banksters(hindsight: attacking their own), to at the time hide/distract cores involvement with bankers by pretending something not core was the banker enemy.

gavin andresen: moved away from blockstream-core due to the banker politics. and joined XT, but soon found out they too were still part of the same banker politics, so he moved out again and formed his own dev group in classic.

other names: J garzik moved to bitpay, then formed bloq, then joined the bankers...,
others moved over to MIT, blockchain.info, or other bitcoin related developments.

even today luke JR is trying to brand his implementation as Knots, as an alternative to core, while being paid by the same bankers that contract devs in core, bitcoinj, and xt.

independent code and non-banker funded implementations are becoming harder to find. even green address and other bitcoin standalone or web based /app based implementations ar coming under the same banker control.

so far the main one not attached to bankers is BU (even gavin seems to be tied to bankers now, due to his ties to bloq). but that hasnt stopped the bankers diverting banker intentions of core, by attacking BU as being the saboteurs. as the latest bait and switch to try getting users into the banker dominance camp (wolf calling a sheep a wolf, to scare the sheep into the wolves mouths)

[Kprawn]

Gavin and Hearn and all these people trying to sabotage Bitcoin, would have had their asses whipped. What do you say?

I say that, if you think that Gavin and Hearn were trying to sabotage Bitcoin, it only goes to show how effective control over a semi-public communication channel can be in spreading disinformation.

If you want to make a counter statement, go for it. I am curious to know how a rage quit from Hearn and Gavin's competing technology are not hurting Bitcoin. To go public and telling people Bitcoin is a failed experiment, is definitely not my idea of someone trying to support the technology.

OK, let's address each one, shall we?

First, what is 'Gavin's competing technology' and in what manner is it 'hurting Bitcoin'? In what way does such 'hurt' rise to the level of 'sabotage'?

Second, do you believe that Hearn has some sort of responsibility to work on things other than what he desires? Further, what value do you think the term 'rage quit' brings to the discussion? Assuming he legitimately arrived at a personal determination that the weakly-defined governance model -- or any other characteristic -- rendered Bitcoin to be destined for failure, what would you expect him to do - lie to the world at large about what he believes that prospects are? In what way are his comments 'sabotage'?

If your idea of 'sabotage' is synonymous with your definition of 'not supporting', you might expect that others find your communiques puzzling at best.

Cmon, Do not tell me you cannot see that XT and Classic were introduced to create confusion and to divide the community? Gavin jumped

from the one to the other, when he found no place to make money. Both Gavin & Hearn underestimated their popularity within the Bitcoin

community, and when they realized that.... it was already to late to turn back. Mike already had a exit plan with R3 ... so he jumped ship,

and left a bomb to sink it... but that failed, and we are still sailing. 

[jbreher]

Gavin and Hearn and all these people trying to sabotage Bitcoin, would have had their asses whipped. What do you say?

I say that, if you think that Gavin and Hearn were trying to sabotage Bitcoin, it only goes to show how effective control over a semi-public communication channel can be in spreading disinformation.

If you want to make a counter statement, go for it. I am curious to know how a rage quit from Hearn and Gavin's competing technology are not hurting Bitcoin. To go public and telling people Bitcoin is a failed experiment, is definitely not my idea of someone trying to support the technology.

OK, let's address each one, shall we?

First, what is 'Gavin's competing technology' and in what manner is it 'hurting Bitcoin'? In what way does such 'hurt' rise to the level of 'sabotage'?

Second, do you believe that Hearn has some sort of responsibility to work on things other than what he desires? Further, what value do you think the term 'rage quit' brings to the discussion? Assuming he legitimately arrived at a personal determination that the weakly-defined governance model -- or any other characteristic -- rendered Bitcoin to be destined for failure, what would you expect him to do - lie to the world at large about what he believes that prospects are? In what way are his comments 'sabotage'?

If your idea of 'sabotage' is synonymous with your definition of 'not supporting', you might expect that others find your communiques puzzling at best.

First, I will pause by noting that you failed to answer even one of my direct questions. Whatevs. That said....

Cmon, Do not tell me you cannot see that XT and Classic were introduced to create confusion and to divide the community?

I don't believe for a minute that the purpose behind XT and Classic was to "create confusion and to divide the community". What utter twaddle. Gavin had been speaking for years about the need to increase the block size. These were merely an attempt to do so.

What evidence can you point to to support your assertion that the purpose behind XT and/or Classic was to "create confusion and to divide the community"?

Gavin jumped from the one to the other...

When his initial attempt was unsuccessful, he tried another approach that he likely beleived would have greater chance of success. What would you expect a rational person to do in such a circumstance?

...when he found no place to make money.

Make money? In what way would his capacity to make money have changed if things had gone differently?

Mike already had a exit plan with R3 ... so he jumped ship,

I really don't know at what time Mike had started talking to R3. I'm guessing you also have no idea, and you are just talking out of your ass. Put up or shut up.

and left a bomb to sink it...

'A bomb'? You sound like a frightened schoolgirl. He merely stated his thoughts on the matter. That's not 'sabotage' as you claim. That is just making one's thoughts known. You can disagree with him if you desire (indeed, I disagree on his point that the failure to increase blocksize is a _fatal_ problem). But holding him responsible for 'sabotage' on this point is beyond the pale.