Where would Bitcoin be without XT and Unlimited?

[DooMAD]

Once again the format of the discussion is swiftly devolving into which "side" has the more sinister boogeyman.  Every damn time.

Just for once, can we not leave the personalities and corporations out of it and shut up about Gavin/Blockstream/Hearn/R3/etc and how evil they all supposedly are or aren't?  It can't be that difficult just to discuss ideas on merit, rather than speculate on the agendas or motives of people and companies you've probably never even met.  And no, I don't care if you have met any of them.  They're still baseless accusations of intent.  You don't actually know what any of them really want.

C'mon, just this once.  Please.



Code > Motive/Agenda/Intent/etc

[kiklo]

Hmm, here is a thought.

All of these guys causing confusion over the BTC Dev team proposals are probably working for Chinese Mining Pools.
Since it was the Chinese mining pools that blocked the proposed updates.  

Art of War
Sun Tzu
“The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent.”

 

[pooya87]

~
All of these guys causing confusion over the BTC Dev team proposals are probably working for Chinese Mining Pools.
Since it was the Chinese mining pools that blocked the proposed updates. 
~

it doesn't matter who works for whom or wants to implement what, we are talking about bitcoin with the biggest community and the most spread mining not a random altcoin.

and how much hash rate does each Chinese pool have? 10%? 20%? or even the combination 60%?

a consensus needs 95% to switch !

[jbreher]

a consensus needs 95% to switch

No. Kiklo spouts a lot of nonsense, presenting merely possible conclusions as matters of settled fact. But he or she is indeed correct that any group in collusion holding greater than half of the mining power can rewrite the blockchain*.

The '95% consensus' is merely a self-imposed threshold.

*Of course, game theory points out that they stand to lose their vast investment in hashing machines, as users abandon a broken system.








Further, they still have not clarified what the heck they are spouting about by saying "it was the Chinese mining pools that blocked the proposed updates". But again, I've kind of lost interest in that particular discussion.

[kiklo]

a consensus needs 95% to switch

But Kiklo is indeed correct that any group in collusion holding greater than half of the mining power can rewrite the blockchain*.

Just wanted to see it in Blue, please carry on. 


 

[Kakmakr]

Once again the format of the discussion is swiftly devolving into which "side" has the more sinister boogeyman.  Every damn time.

Just for once, can we not leave the personalities and corporations out of it and shut up about Gavin/Blockstream/Hearn/R3/etc and how evil they all supposedly are or aren't?  It can't be that difficult just to discuss ideas on merit, rather than speculate on the agendas or motives of people and companies you've probably never even met.  And no, I don't care if you have met any of them.  They're still baseless accusations of intent.  You don't actually know what any of them really want.

C'mon, just this once.  Please.



Code > Motive/Agenda/Intent/etc

Yea, I am also sick of all the Big blockers and Gavin fanboys and Small blockers fighting each other. The discussion should be about Bitcoin, and if XT/Classic/Unlimited would have had any influence on the success of Bitcoin, not the right or wrongs being done on both sides.

I think it had a influence, and we would have been much stronger, if they did not exist. ^hmmmm^

[DooMAD]

The discussion should be about Bitcoin, and if XT/Classic/Unlimited would have had any influence on the success of Bitcoin, not the right or wrongs being done on both sides.

I think it had a influence, and we would have been much stronger, if they did not exist. ^hmmmm^

The only reason they exist is to express ideas that couldn't propagate via any other means.  One way or another, they were going to happen.  And I'll explain why that's a good thing.  In my mind, the strongest system is survival of the fittest, trial by fire, proven in battle, etc.  Not a system where we coddle or overprotect the ideas we personally approve of and stifle all dissent.  Echo chambers rarely produce the best results.  I feel it's healthier and more robust to throw all the ideas out there, let them run the gauntlet, prove their worth and see which ones make it back both alive and hardened in combat.