Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

By the way, the point in time where a gold backed money becomes a fiat money, is when there is just a tad more paper than gold in the system than the people are comfortable with, and a run starts. The state proclaims that the been (ref example) is just as good as gold, and apply a law to support that illusion. The law is the fiat point.

We don't have fiat money. Money is backed by deposits and securities. You will not get a credit (which is money) without that.

We do have fiat money, but the extent of debt is so large that it seems that debt is the basis. It is not, it is the fiat paper, plus the electronic only fiat created in QE. Unredeemable and unbacked. The debt extends the quantum of money while it exist, and contracts the money when it is extingushed by being paid back or written off. So debt is also money, I agree with that, but it is not the base, it is an extension of the base quantum.

Fiat means 'out of nothing'. Money IS debt, and nothing different. It is not paper, and the debt is backed by deposits and securities. A bank creates money, as soon as you take a credit (backed by your deposit).

It's the fractional reserve lending that is fiat, is it not?

[1714908104]

1714908104

[BldSwtTrs]

the only bloatcoiner smart enough to see this clearly is Mike Hearn, and that is exactly why he has put in the effort to make XT.  Classic controlled demolition.

Excellent (and blessedly succinct) argument by analogy.  "Hostile/malicious fork" descriptive power just doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi as "controlled demolition."

Does not convince many. Not here and not there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.60

Bitcoin is explicitly non-democratic.  Populism has no power here.

Yes, the populism of the 1MBers has no power, neither in the threads of the elite nor anywhere else. That's why the limit will be raised within the next 12 month.

The "populism of the 1MBers" is not your concern.

Your concern is the multi-year duration and multi-billion-dollar magnitude of Bitcoin's current economic majority.

Are you going to be the first brave fellow to defect from that imposing majority by accepting Gavin-tainted XTcoins?  No?  Then you are just a poser.

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks.  To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization.  They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?

Before you answer, please take into account that nodes by default prioritize tx moving older coins, and the Royalty of La Serenissima possesses, in great quantities, very old coins.

What will you do when the limit isn't raised within the next 12 months?  Continue to cry wolf?  Self harm? Or admit being wrong?  

MP is the great visionary who sold forward 5,000 ETH for 1 BTC.

In the unlikely event they have enough honour to put their money where their mouth is, the 1Mber will go broke because there are less smart than they think they are, and it will be funny to watch.

[Peter R]

...
EDIT: It hasn't been censored yet: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h42cz/bitcoin_is_forked/

146 up-votes in 57 minutes and 94 comments. 

And now it's gone.

[Adrian-x]

I for one believe the depressed growth in price is largely influenced by the risk of bitcoin failure, and i suspect we'll see a lot of action when we get new information and certainty on Block size.

this is true.

between now and when this whole block size issue is resolved...there will be a ton of volatility.

I would have thought the exact opposite - nobody wants to move until things are clearer. Gently sideways....

Bitcoin has been very stable true. But since Blockstream proposed to break Bitcoin (original dialogue suggested it could be considered a scaling solutions although denied when it was suggested that, that may be a motive for resisting block size increases)  the price has been declining (be it stable). That's good news in my it reflects coins are in responsible hands.

There is still no guarantee Bitcoin as conceived will prevail.

[smoothie]

the only bloatcoiner smart enough to see this clearly is Mike Hearn, and that is exactly why he has put in the effort to make XT.  Classic controlled demolition.

Excellent (and blessedly succinct) argument by analogy.  "Hostile/malicious fork" descriptive power just doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi as "controlled demolition."

Does not convince many. Not here and not there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.60

Bitcoin is explicitly non-democratic.  Populism has no power here.

Yes, the populism of the 1MBers has no power, neither in the threads of the elite nor anywhere else. That's why the limit will be raised within the next 12 month.

The "populism of the 1MBers" is not your concern.

Your concern is the multi-year duration and multi-billion-dollar magnitude of Bitcoin's current economic majority.

Are you going to be the first brave fellow to defect from that imposing majority by accepting Gavin-tainted XTcoins?  No?  Then you are just a poser.

In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks.  To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization.  They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.

Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?

Before you answer, please take into account that nodes by default prioritize tx moving older coins, and the Royalty of La Serenissima possesses, in great quantities, very old coins.

What will you do when the limit isn't raised within the next 12 months?  Continue to cry wolf?  Self harm? Or admit being wrong?  

You know iCE, I also am concerned by the idea of a hostile fork, but reading your propaganda it just dawned on me that the only hostilities are coming from people like you. Everyone of any worth agrees we need to increase the block size, it's just there is a hostile minority who feel they are in power who are wanting to pick a fight.

Accommodating bigger blocks over a 12 month period given Bitcoin's exponential growth is not a hostile act, it's not rushing in a controversial change, it's a practical prudent approach.

You are part of the minority who are making it controversial and calling it hostile. I just don't see why you're opposed to letting Bitcoin grow free of manipulation and control.

Well said, Adrian.

Ice seems to have some issues with change (i guess).

[domob]

...

Those of us who are not programmers or otherwise professionals re BTC can get a reasonably good overview of the debate re block size and related topics here (new piece by Mike Hearn):

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

I cannot confirm how valid the piece is, but non-tekkies ought to at least have an option of reading commentary like this which is in more-or-less plain English.

Note that Hearn himself wrote in the email to the mailing list that this is not supposed to be neutral.  So you have to see it as one side of the discussion (i. e., his opinion).

[smoothie]

...

Those of us who are not programmers or otherwise professionals re BTC can get a reasonably good overview of the debate re block size and related topics here (new piece by Mike Hearn):

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

I cannot confirm how valid the piece is, but non-tekkies ought to at least have an option of reading commentary like this which is in more-or-less plain English.

Note that Hearn himself wrote in the email to the mailing list that this is not supposed to be neutral.  So you have to see it as one side of the discussion (i. e., his opinion).

I actually don't hear many good arguments as to why the block size should not increase and why a select few have decided to remain static for as long as possible in a supposedly ground breaking and growing technology.

[Peter R]

...
EDIT: It hasn't been censored yet: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h42cz/bitcoin_is_forked/

146 up-votes in 57 minutes and 94 comments. 

And now it's gone.

Stranger yet.  In the post that remains uncensored, it appears that many of the comments referring to the censorship of the previous post, or links to the larger-block size code, are being deleted:

[Bagatell]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h424p/why_is_bitcoin_forking/cu4498v

[–]i_rarely_post_ 2 points 10 minutes ago

Hi, can someone please explain why all posts that mention the deleted "Bitcoin is forked" thread or ask for an explanation are deleted? I'm serious, please explain (please don't delete this post).

    perma-linksavereportgive goldreply

[–]StarMaged [M] 1 point 4 minutes ago

Sure.

That post itself is off-topic because it is a download link to an alt-coin. The discussion is removed for being a duplicate of the drama that we allowed for three straight days earlier this week.

[awemany]

...
EDIT: It hasn't been censored yet: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h42cz/bitcoin_is_forked/

146 up-votes in 57 minutes and 94 comments. 

And now it's gone.

Stranger yet.  In the post that remains uncensored, it appears that many of the comments referring to the censorship of the previous post, or links to the larger-block size code, are being deleted:

https://i.imgur.com/aDQv2ZA.png

https://i.imgur.com/GzYjFAE.png

Is there a way to get the mod situation on /r/Bitcoin fixed?
If not, is there a way that any mod action could be stored for reference somewhere, so that there is at least a visible trail of what happened?

BTW: Just curious, and maybe our BIP is not needed anyways, but did you have a look at my comment with regards to not-quite hard forking?

[Odalv]

I would not mind if Hearn created XT sidechain and XT supporters will be merge mining both chains.

Win win. MC will stay small and BloatChainers will have unlimited space for spamming.
It would be fine if Blockstream shows XT-SC before the end of year.

[bassclef]

It would be nice if Satoshi would weigh in on the debate now that it has come to a head with Mike's release of XT. The last time he did was in response to the media potentially using the Dorian Nakamoto story to discredit Bitcoin in a big way. This issue seems more pressing.

I'm sure he's out there watching closely. Maybe his silence says it all.

[brg444]

It would be nice if Satoshi would weigh in on the debate now that it has come to a head with Mike's release of XT. The last time he did was in response to the media potentially using the Dorian Nakamoto story to discredit Bitcoin in a big way. This issue seems more pressing.

I'm sure he's out there watching closely. Maybe his silence says it all.

Satoshi returning to weigh in on ANY debate is the WORST possible outcome and would do nothing but reinforce lazy appeals to authority.

[bassclef]

It would be nice if Satoshi would weigh in on the debate now that it has come to a head with Mike's release of XT. The last time he did was in response to the media potentially using the Dorian Nakamoto story to discredit Bitcoin in a big way. This issue seems more pressing.

I'm sure he's out there watching closely. Maybe his silence says it all.

Satoshi returning to weigh in on ANY debate is the WORST possible outcome and would do nothing but reinforce lazy appeals to authority.

I can think of many worse outcomes. One could think of it as input from an intelligent mind uniquely positioned to give relevant feedback.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

It would be nice if Satoshi would weigh in on the debate now that it has come to a head with Mike's release of XT. The last time he did was in response to the media potentially using the Dorian Nakamoto story to discredit Bitcoin in a big way. This issue seems more pressing.

I'm sure he's out there watching closely. Maybe his silence says it all.

That was a hoax - someone having a laugh using an account that had become dormant and hackable.

[Peter R]

/u/raisethelimit's cartoon was removed the moment I checked, but there's still a link in his response here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h424p/why_is_bitcoin_forking/cu45qah

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h4kzz/the_hypocrisy_of_a_thermos_bitcoin_political/

EDIT: /u/raisethelimit's link to his cartoon has now been removed.

[tvbcof]

I would not mind if Hearn created XT sidechain and XT supporters will be merge mining both chains.

Win win. MC will stay small and BloatChainers will have unlimited space for spamming.
It would be fine if Blockstream shows XT-SC before the end of year.

Don't hold your breath.  The goal is to try to appropriate Bitcoin's dominance before it becomes recognized as a viable backing store for a sidechains style ecosystem.  This makes XT be in direct competition with Bitcoin and a mortal adversary.  Making XT a sidechain would make a lot of sense otherwise.  That explains the desperate feel to this effort.  Pulling out all the stops with a swarm of shills, absurdly stretched arguments, blatant fear-mongering, etc.

As I've said before, XT's success in this effort to supplant Bitcoin (which is a remote possibility due to poor timing, but possible due to more-or-less unlimited resources) might actually be a good thing for a subordinate chains ecosystem because it may force a more robust backing solution to be adopted.  Time will tell.

[brg444]

Well for one Garzik is not having it :

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/632643215749869568

[brg444]

It would be nice if Satoshi would weigh in on the debate now that it has come to a head with Mike's release of XT. The last time he did was in response to the media potentially using the Dorian Nakamoto story to discredit Bitcoin in a big way. This issue seems more pressing.

I'm sure he's out there watching closely. Maybe his silence says it all.

That was a hoax - someone having a laugh using an account that had become dormant and hackable.

Another hoax?

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

Bring out the popcorn 

[smoothie]

/u/raisethelimit's cartoon was removed the moment I checked, but there's still a link in his response here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h424p/why_is_bitcoin_forking/cu45qah

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h4kzz/the_hypocrisy_of_a_thermos_bitcoin_political/

EDIT: /u/raisethelimit's link to his cartoon has now been removed.

That's some funny shit! ROFL!