Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

well, i just converted 5 of my nodes over to XT

Again?

i've only ever said i converted 1.  now, 5 more.

[1713515970]

1713515970

[1713515970]

1713515970

[1713515970]

1713515970

[cypherdoc]

I didn't realize that the mods at r/bitcoin were deleting posts related to BitcoinXT as though it was an alt-coin:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdad5/meta_on_hardforking_if_bitcoin_is_so_vulnerable/ctx2h9b
...

BitcoinXT is a classic alt-coin.  A non-compatible change to the protocol undertaken by a minority of Bitcoin contributors (and minor contributors at that.)

I again wish them luck and I am hopeful that a large segment of the Bitcoin community jumps onboard with the XT project since it will produce a much more healthy ecosystem for those who do not.

of course little dogs like you won't comment on the part about censorship.  i wouldn't expect you to get it.

[tvbcof]

I didn't realize that the mods at r/bitcoin were deleting posts related to BitcoinXT as though it was an alt-coin:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdad5/meta_on_hardforking_if_bitcoin_is_so_vulnerable/ctx2h9b
...

BitcoinXT is a classic alt-coin.  A non-compatible change to the protocol undertaken by a minority of Bitcoin contributors (and minor contributors at that.)

I again wish them luck and I am hopeful that a large segment of the Bitcoin community jumps onboard with the XT project since it will produce a much more healthy ecosystem for those who do not.

of course little dogs like you won't comment on the part about censorship.  i wouldn't expect you to get it.

I don't follow reddit because, as I've said before, it is useless and tends to be censored significantly in addition to having a high percentage of 'tards.  Even more than here on trolltalk!  Reddit is perfectly free to play their games as far as I'm concerned.  Shit-canning discussions of an alt-coin like XT on the basis of the fact that it is an alt-coin and thus not appropriate for a pre-defined discussion of Bitcoin is hardly the most egregious of their sins from what I gather, and actually sounds like it may be pretty appropriate.

[tvbcof]

well, i just converted 5 of my nodes over to XT

Again?

i've only ever said i converted 1.  now, 5 more.

So you personally are a fair fraction of the entire XT movement with it's tens of thousands of nodes scattered around the world some VM provider.  A true Generalissimo if every there was one!

[majamalu]

BitcoinXT is a classic alt-coin.  A non-compatible change to the protocol undertaken by a minority of Bitcoin contributors (and minor contributors at that.)

I again wish them luck and I am hopeful that a large segment of the Bitcoin community jumps onboard with the XT project since it will produce a much more healthy ecosystem for those who do not.

That is what I would like to hear from every "1 MB forevah" supporter. I wonder why are they so afraid of a hard fork ...

[tvbcof]

BitcoinXT is a classic alt-coin.  A non-compatible change to the protocol undertaken by a minority of Bitcoin contributors (and minor contributors at that.)

I again wish them luck and I am hopeful that a large segment of the Bitcoin community jumps onboard with the XT project since it will produce a much more healthy ecosystem for those who do not.

This is what I would like to hear from every "1 MB forevah" supporter. I wonder why are they so afraid of a hard fork ...

Can't take 'yes' for an answer?  I said clearly that I wish you guys would get on with it with your bloatcoin and quite flapping your gums.  Bring it on already!

[Erdogan]

Talking about altcoins that is started from a fork of bitcoin, by changing one or more essential parameters like block time interval, block reward and max coin number - it could be useful to start with an already partly distributed coin, with miner technology, wallets and infrastructure ready. Has it happened? If it has, I haven't noticed.

[majamalu]

BitcoinXT is a classic alt-coin.  A non-compatible change to the protocol undertaken by a minority of Bitcoin contributors (and minor contributors at that.)

I again wish them luck and I am hopeful that a large segment of the Bitcoin community jumps onboard with the XT project since it will produce a much more healthy ecosystem for those who do not.

This is what I would like to hear from every "1 MB forevah" supporter. I wonder why are they so afraid of a hard fork ...

Can't take 'yes' for an answer?  I said clearly that I wish you guys would get on with it with your bloatcoin and quite flapping your gums.  Bring it on already!

Yeah, but don't you wonder why your opinion is not popular between the 1MB folks?

[tvbcof]

BitcoinXT is a classic alt-coin.  A non-compatible change to the protocol undertaken by a minority of Bitcoin contributors (and minor contributors at that.)

I again wish them luck and I am hopeful that a large segment of the Bitcoin community jumps onboard with the XT project since it will produce a much more healthy ecosystem for those who do not.

This is what I would like to hear from every "1 MB forevah" supporter. I wonder why are they so afraid of a hard fork ...

Can't take 'yes' for an answer?  I said clearly that I wish you guys would get on with it with your bloatcoin and quite flapping your gums.  Bring it on already!

Yeah, but don't you wonder why your opinion is not popular between the 1MB folks?

Not really.  It is more common than not for my opinion to not mesh well with the majority of any group, and that is very common among groups with whom I find myself in alignment.

I suppose it would not be fair to say that I don't 'wonder' about these things.  I've got various hypotheses about why a majority of the 1MB's, or at least those who's opinions are know, differ from my own stance.  There is no very good reason to outline them at present.

In looking more carefully at this conversation I note that I did mis-read it and my response was not completely appropriate.  For that I apologize.

[iCEBREAKER]

I didn't realize that the mods at r/bitcoin were deleting posts related to BitcoinXT as though it was an alt-coin:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdad5/meta_on_hardforking_if_bitcoin_is_so_vulnerable/ctx2h9b

Here's a spoof on the Core dev's turning into the equivalent of the Fed's Open Market Planning Committee (FOMC):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdj7j/a_better_way_to_govern_bitcoin_block_size_open/

Cowards who use sockpuppets because they aren't willing to pay a reputational cost for their claims.

That form of debate is the proof of stake of public discourse.

They get to claim pure motives for hiding their identities and if they lose the debate, or if their predictions are shown to be false, of if they decide to employ dishonest and underhanded tactics to achieve their goals, then their public identities don't have to suffer.

Fuck them for wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

Yes, how dare anyone take care to insulate debates from ad hom fallacies and protect their families/careers from internet whackjobs?

Fuck Satoshi Nakamoto for being an anonymous coward!  Nobody ever said disrupting gold, central banks, and fintech settlement would be safe or easy!  Man up and make sacrifices!  The revolution needs martyrs!

And fuck Publius for writing all those mean things about how the King of England treats his American Colonies.  Such a gutless terror-symp, am I right?


PS  Still waiting for your concern over lack of an objective, precise definition for Bitcoin network "overcapacity" to result in some amazing new concepts and dimensionless numbers.

After all the hand wringing you performed over our unforgivably sloppy use of "decentralized" I'm sure such research is your top priority.  

[iCEBREAKER]

well, i just converted 5 of my nodes over to XT

Again?

i've only ever said i converted 1.  now, 5 more.

So you personally are a fair fraction of the entire XT movement with it's tens of thousands of nodes scattered around the world some VM provider.  A true Generalissimo if every there was one!

The Free Shit Army is on the march!  Team Core trembles.   

Given the fact that the block size limit debate hasn't achieved anything even remotely resembling consensus, yet BitcoinXT contains code which could fragment the blockchain and existing ecosystem, the decision to moderate BitcoinXT topics as off-topic is consistent with actions taken towards alternate blockchains like Litecoin, Dogecoin, Ethereum, etc.

--> 37 "I have buttburn" votes (including lulzy typical-redditard whining about "ZOMG CENSORSHIP!!!1! HALP I'M BEING OPPRESSED").

#REKT

[iCEBREAKER]

I didn't realize that the mods at r/bitcoin were deleting posts related to BitcoinXT as though it was an alt-coin:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdad5/meta_on_hardforking_if_bitcoin_is_so_vulnerable/ctx2h9b
...

BitcoinXT is a classic alt-coin.  A non-compatible change to the protocol undertaken by a minority of Bitcoin contributors (and minor contributors at that.)

I again wish them luck and I am hopeful that a large segment of the Bitcoin community jumps onboard with the XT project since it will produce a much more healthy ecosystem for those who do not.

of course little dogs like you won't comment on the part about censorship.  i wouldn't expect you to get it.

The puffery "about censorship" is the most lulzy of all, because it highlights the self-righteous whiny immaturity and fundamental ignorance of the ReddiTard mob.

What a great thread.  Such epic Gavinista buttburn.  Well done Thermos!   

[tvbcof]

of course little dogs like you won't comment on the part about censorship.  i wouldn't expect you to get it.

I just sensed that iCE would and could do a better job on this than I...and I was not disappointed:

...
--> 37 "I have buttburn" votes (including lulzy typical-redditard whining about "ZOMG CENSORSHIP!!!1! HALP I'M BEING OPPRESSED").

#REKT

HALP!    LOL

[majamalu]

The puffery "about censorship" is the most lulzy of all, because it highlights the self-righteous whiny immaturity and fundamental ignorance of the ReddiTard mob.

What a great thread.  Such epic Gavinista buttburn.  Well done Thermos!   

As usual, not a single argument - just a cheap and dull imitation of MP.

[brg444]

about the lightning "vaporware" https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ge122/sidechain_elements_lightning_protocol_testbed/?sort=confidence

is there a more exciting development in Bitcoin right now than the progress on Sidechains Elements™ & Lightning™ all brought to you by Blockstream™?

I don't think so!

[cypherdoc]

testing versions of XT available on the nodes monitor:

http://xtnodes.com/

[justusranvier]

Yes, how dare anyone take care to insulate debates from ad hom fallacies and protect their families/careers from internet whackjobs?

Fuck Satoshi Nakamoto for being an anonymous coward!  Nobody ever said disrupting gold, central banks, and fintech settlement would be safe or easy!  Man up and make sacrifices!  The revolution needs martyrs!

And fuck Publius for writing all those mean things about how the King of England treats his American Colonies.  Such a gutless terror-symp, am I right?

The purpose of anonymous speech is, as you mentioned, to avoid adverse consequences of speaking.

In general you can divide this further into two categories:

1. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling the truth
2. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling a lie

1. Is admirable, 2. is contemptible.

PS  Still waiting for your concern over lack of an objective, precise definition for Bitcoin network "overcapacity" to result in some amazing new concepts and dimensionless numbers.

After all the hand wringing you performed over our unforgivably sloppy use of "decentralized" I'm sure such research is your top priority.  

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

[Peter R]

From: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdj7j/a_better_way_to_govern_bitcoin_block_size_open/ctxb53s

You are really going all out on the attack FUD on this one aren't you?

I think the analogy to the Fed's FOMC is fairly accurate. Part of the ideology behind central banking is that a group of educated men can make better decisions for what is best for the economy (by choosing the interest rate that balances "inflation expectations" with "employment") than allowing the free market to solve the same problem.

This is similar to the block size debate. Part of the ideology behind limiting the block size is that a group of talented coders can make better decisions for what is best for Bitcoin, by choosing a limit that produces what they see as a better balance between "decentralization" and "blockchain access," than what would happen if the limit were slowly removed according to Gavin's BIP101 proposal.

Isn't this what the debate really comes down to now? The technical debate is over; It's ideology at this point. Do we want a Bitcoin that has a dual mandate of balancing decentralization with blockchain access? Or do we want a permissionless Bitcoin where blockspace is governed by the fee market?

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress.  The technical debate is over.  Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

[smooth]

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress.  The technical debate is over.  Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

That's frankly bullshit Peter R and I'm surprised to see that kind of rhetoric from you.

Bitcoin the technology is by its nature a decentralized and peer-to-peer system, but also one that "should" scale. The trade offs between decentralization and scaling are very much part of that technology and therefore part of the "technical debate". The only thing ideological here are people who want to move it from that realm to something else, and give people who are neither technologists nor directly involved with building the technology any input at all. That includes opinions on whether the debate is technical or not.

[Peter R]

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress.  The technical debate is over.  Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

That's frankly bullshit Peter R and I'm surprised to see that kind of rhetoric from you.

Bitcoin the technology is by its nature a decentralized and peer-to-peer system, but also one that "should" scale. The trade offs between decentralization and scaling are very much part of that technology and therefore part of the "technical debate". The only thing ideological here are people who want to move it from that realm to something else, and give people who are neither technologists nor directly involved with building the technology any input at all. That includes opinions on whether the debate is technical or not.

I should have said "between BIP100, 101, 102, etc., the debate is not technical but ideological at this point."  

Do you believe that moving forward with BIP101 (Gavin's proposal) could destroy Bitcoin for technical reasons?