Where would Bitcoin be without XT and Unlimited?

[Kprawn]

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?

[1715499729]

1715499729

[1715499729]

1715499729

[1715499729]

1715499729

[1715499729]

1715499729

[1715499729]

1715499729

[1715499729]

1715499729

[franky1]

satoshi was planning on 2mb blocks in 2011.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366
he would have been happy with diverse nodes.

he would have also implemented 'patch' update mechanism so that it didnt require upgrading a whole implementation but just downloading an addon to expand functionality. and also users ability to change settings independently/manually.

thus there would not be bickering. but simple use of the consensus mechanism.

how has gavin and hearne tried to sabotage bitcoin.. all their implementations are actually running LIVE on the blockchain right now. their implementations were to use consensus. none of their efforts have been to intentionally split the network. however it has been core that has been telling other implementations to f**k off. and it is core devs that are funded by banks. yep gmaxwell pietre wuille are paid by R3 (the hypocrits that shamed hearne for working for R3).
it is gmaxwell that has told other implementations to avoid consensus and split off(his bilateral fork buzzword)

core have been the ones with the "competition" mindset rather than community mindset.
take newyork as a concept of community.. instead of everyone seeing all newyorkers. core fanboys and devs have been screaming that minorities should F**k off out of town. and then hate the chinatown district.
where as the minorities and china town actually have a place in the community.

but hey no point trying you wake you up seems your too deep in the dictatorship camp of wanting one dev group to dictate bitcoin

[kiklo]

The Fact that Satoshi has said absolutely nothing in regards to BTC,
kind of lets you know how disgusted he is with what has happen to his creation.

It was supposed to be a decentralized form of currency for the world.
It has become nothing more than a Centralized Currency controlled by China.
The Ultimate Failure to his Original Dream.


 

[franky1]

Centralized Currency controlled by China.

i know your trying real hard to distract people away from the real control by devs by meandering it into a racist rhetoric about mining pools.

but i need to correct your racist rhetoric
i mentioned it in another topic but here is a summary.

haobtc.. although asian are in tibet aswell as other locations
BW.. although asian are in mongolia aswell as other locations
BTCC..  although asian have users around the world
bitfury.. although asian are in Finland, Iceland, and the Republic of Georgia.

you will surprise yourself if you done the actual research to see how much actual hashpower actually is in china and how much is not..
hint: far less hashpower is in china then you think

[kiklo]

Centralized Currency controlled by China.

i know your trying real hard to distract people away from the real control by devs by meandering it into a racist rhetoric about mining pools.

but i need to correct your racist rhetoric
i mentioned it in another topic but here is a summary.

haobtc.. although asian are in tibet aswell as other locations
BW.. although asian are in mongolia aswell as other locations
BTCC..  although asian have users around the world
bitfury.. although asian are in Finland, Iceland, and the Republic of Georgia.

you will surprise yourself if you done the actual research to see how much actual hashpower actually is in china and how much is not..
hint: far less hashpower is in china then you think

Racism, seems to be the only word , your Lying BTC Propaganda Knows.

Control of the Chinese Mining Pools goes to China, ignoring this proves you are foolish or have hidden motives.

China has shown over 70% mining in the past year, you keep right on ignoring the truth,
although from the lack of data and the fact you mainly try to demonize the Truth.
You're probably just a PR hack trying to cover up the 51% attack problem.

 

FYI:
Your So called BTC Devs could not even raise the block size to 20 MB last year to fix the transactions problem.
And why is that , Because the Chinese Mining Pools (BTC Real Masters) Stopped them cold.
Your BTC Devs are flaccid and unable to update the code to fix a major issue, because China with its over 51% mining has more control over BTC than its' Devs.

FYI2:
@franky1 , the best word to describe you is Self-Serving, as you place your Greed over the Truth and over the welfare of everyone that reads it.

FYI3: People have been warning everyone for over a year.
https://bitcointa.lk/threads/blockchain-info-now-shows-china-mining-54-of-btc.428341/page-2
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fjkcs/the_communist_part_of_china_controls_more_than_51/
http://www.coindesk.com/ahead-bitcoin-halving-51-attack-risks-reappear/
People were so afraid of Ghash having 51% they DDOS them.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-mining-pool-ghash-io-ddos-ed-response-51-attack/

[franky1]

all i see is you repeating "chinese" in every post.

the hash power is international. what hashpower is in china is less then you think. instead of googling china
google something for once.

take f2pool.. hash power international. not in one single farm.
again not a sing farm but an internation hub for 7500 active users.

servers all over the planet.

the guy that owns it.. guess what
THAILAND!!

Admin Name: Wang Chun
Admin Organization: F2Pool
Admin Street: Soi Naklua 16, Naklua Sub-District,,
Admin City: Banglamung
Admin State/Province: Chonburi
Admin Postal Code: 020150
Admin Country: TH
Admin Phone: +66.973040750
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:+66.973040750
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: admin@f2pool.com

dont throw the racist card unless you can back it up with fact.. not opinions of other racists who also didnt bother to research

all i see is you throwing the race card, and backing it up with nothing more then "because that persons racist too so i believe him"

[Jet Cash]

Surely it isn't where the hashpower is located but who controls it.

[franky1]

Surely it isn't where the hashpower is located but who controls it.

there are many factors and many means of attack.

but you are right. the main weakness is the pool server itself and the stratums servers and the admin, IT team

hense why stratum servers are international and the administrators are too..

like i shown for f2pool.. thailand not china.. i guess the chinese government need to walk 1000 miles, and then walk 1000 miles more to slap the administrator with a wet sushi to get the administrator to do anything

all these "china own bitcoin" stuff has been mitigated AGES ago, its old news and just used as a distraction.

[BitcoinHodler]

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?

satoshi is not a GOD so even if satoshi was still around or comes around today satoshi would still remain 1 opinion and although satoshi is the creator, we should not give's satoshi's opinion any more value than we give other developer's in my opinion.

but yeah i think if satoshi was around maybe things would have moved forward faster because of this GOD like figure we have been giving.

[Kprawn]

This discussion is taking the wrong direction.. racism and Chinese world domination is not the point. We should answer the question... Would

we have been this divided, if Satoshi was still around? Was this done deliberately to divide and conquer? I think Satoshi would have taken

charge of the situation and he would have increased the Block size { within limits } and this would have squashed all competition or sabotage.

 

[franky1]

This discussion is taking the wrong direction.. racism and Chinese world domination is not the point. We should answer the question... Would

we have been this divided, if Satoshi was still around? Was this done deliberately to divide and conquer? I think Satoshi would have taken

charge of the situation and he would have increased the Block size { within limits } and this would have squashed all competition or sabotage.

not so much taken charge. but more so got people to realise that the consensus mechanism is a tool for diverse compromise and agreement. not to ignore it and instead divide and conquer

[deisik]

This discussion is taking the wrong direction.. racism and Chinese world domination is not the point. We should answer the question... Would

we have been this divided, if Satoshi was still around? Was this done deliberately to divide and conquer? I think Satoshi would have taken

charge of the situation and he would have increased the Block size { within limits } and this would have squashed all competition or sabotage.

Satoshi is no longer sticking around, we don't even know if he is still alive or whether he was alive at all. I mean he might not be an individual in the first place, and Bitcoin itself might have been developed by a group of people pretending to be a person or even by some alphabet agency, just like the hashing algorithm it uses for generating blocks (namely, sha-256) has been designed by the NSA. In short, your questions are impossible to answer, and you should know that yourself...

That's why this discussion makes no sense as such and will take wrong direction every time

[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^

[franky1]

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

[yayayo]

It's pretty clear that the initiatives of Gavin Andresen (meeting with the CIA and other governmental bodies, starting the Bitcoin Foundation, launching bigblock Bitcoin-clones) and Mike "RageQuit" Hearn leading to destruction of Bitcoin's decentralization stand against the core idea engraved into the Genesis block by Satoshi himself. Interestingly, Satoshi disappeared at the time of Gavin's visit to the CIA...

The idiotic and outright dangerous attempts by the XT and UnlimitedCoin supporters 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!

[pereira4]

Satoshi wouldn't have been happy about XT, Classic or Unlimited since he wanted to keep the community together working in Core. He said supporting alternative software after 0.1 would be a bad idea, in fact, a "menace to the network":

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.  Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

This is something that all those big blockers "appealing to satoshi" tend to forget.

[Denker]

I'm not sure if it would make a big difference.
At least this way we see how strong and united the community can be.
I see this more as a test to not divide us and keep focusing on the main points.
If XT and Classic wouldn't have been around I'm sure sooner or later someone else would have tried the divide and conquer/rule tactics against us with all the fud and smear.

[deisik]

Satoshi wouldn't have been happy about XT, Classic or Unlimited since he wanted to keep the community together working in Core. He said supporting alternative software after 0.1 would be a bad idea, in fact, a "menace to the network":

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.  Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.

That point can hardly be challenged. There is no gold bug out there who would voluntarily agree to arbitrarily change the properties of gold, for example, its shine and luster, touch and feel. That said, such a day may come when it will be a question of life and death for Bitcoin, i.e. if it should remain the same and invariably die, or it should change and probably survive. Should the block hashing function get compromised this way or other (quantum computing or anything to that tune), this question will get raised instantly. There is likely no feature of Bitcoin that makes it what it is that would be totally invulnerable to a compromise of some kind...

In other words, laws carved in stone are rewritten in blood

[Kprawn]

Satoshi wouldn't have been happy about XT, Classic or Unlimited since he wanted to keep the community together working in Core. He said supporting alternative software after 0.1 would be a bad idea, in fact, a "menace to the network":

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.  Because of that, I wanted to design it to support every possible transaction type I could think of.

That point can hardly be challenged. There is no gold bug out there who would voluntarily agree to arbitrarily change the properties of gold, for example, its shine and luster, touch and feel. That said, such a day may come when it will be a question of life and death for Bitcoin, i.e. if it should remain the same and invariably die, or it should change and probably survive. Should the block hashing function get compromised this way or other (quantum computing or anything to that tune), this question will get raised instantly. There is likely no feature of Bitcoin that makes it what it is that would be totally invulnerable to a compromise of some kind...

In other words, laws carved in stone are rewritten in blood

It is fine, if something has to change when Bitcoin's survival depends on that, but none of the implementations suggested by XT or Unlimited

was anywhere close to that. Yes, it was hyped as the "Doom n Gloom" scenario, and someone spammed the network to scare people into

believing that it was necessary, but when their money ran out... everything returned to normal. 

[Lauda]

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?