Topic: [2015-08-27] Does XT make Mike and Gavin dictators? (Read 731 times)

Seriously?  

a)  I think you mean Lighthouse, not Lightning network.  Two completely different things.  (Lighthouse is a crowdfunding platform, lightning network is a payment channel network)
b)  There is no "spy junk for the US government", stop being as gormless as turtlehurricane.
c)  They aren't asking for sympathy, they're asking for just the slightest hint of intellect and honesty in this conversation.  Way to fail on that one.

It seems like you don't know what BIP is. BIP = Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. Its not a client.

Do not go public and say things like..."Bitcoin needs a benevolent dictator", if you do not want that to happen. They did not get what they wanted

and then they created this shitty fork to benefit the Lightning network and stuffed it with all the spy junk for the US government.

Now they want to play the victim... to garner sympathy from the community. Take your Zimfork and stuff it where the sun do not shine.  

We getting sick of all the XT rubbish now.... Let the community decide on their own, what they want.

This debate is getting too political in my opinion. And I don't like that. XT side or core side, both have their shills and try to manipulate and influence the none technical which client and BIP is the better one. Realizing this shows me how vulnerable Bitcoin really is.
Influencing and manipulating the masses is a very powerful tool by the incumbents and greedy ones who wanna control a majority.

We are lacking what I like to call micky mouse explanations. Explaining complex things in an easy understandable way for the non technicals.
Instead of that both sides hide behind their science language and complex worded bs.

Yes, how dare I advocate scientific experimentation of multiple societies through democracy rather than creating a glorious single minded empire to rule over everybody I must be a total idiot. That was sarcasm by the way, Gavin has freedom of choice as well, XT supporters do seem pretty fucking eager to force their opinions onto others, this reminds me a lot of the transaction fee situation with miners awhile back with that old fork that didn't go through in the end, a bunch of angry miner spammers telling everybody what to do without really giving any proper reasoning behind it.

Also, he does technically need permission to implement it, that's how this thing gets implemented in the first place, if all the miners support it that's how cryptocurrencies work.

Dictators are only created if over 51% of the community turns into "sheeple". All of us have a voice to be heard as well, yet hardly anyone is trying to do something about it.

Nonsense,

He does not need permission to implement his ideas. You have a freedom of choice. Just because you dont like his implementation for whatever reason, you should stop making it sounds like he need permission to release his code.

Why would he have to make an altcoin to prove what? Stop being narrow minded prick. Its like telling any group who propose a new rule to form a new nation and go with it.

Stop spilling out nonsense like this so you can be taken seriously.

The one thing I will say for definite is I don't understand why if he is that convinced his idea is better that he doesn't simply go and make his own alternate currency to compete with Bitcoin like others have done. This two me raises one or two points. He either doesn't have much faith in it and as other fork attempts have done he is just latching onto the Bitcoin name in order to help it survive or it is in fact a deliberate attempt to try and hijack the currency with his own agenda.

Even if he isn't a dictator now his actions and the actions of the Bitcoin foundation proved that people are indeed attempting their own hostile takeovers of Bitcoin, that much I think is certain to me. It is very interesting though that it is the miners who decide overall whether a fork succeeds or not and it looks like a very good safeguard against this kind of bullshit.

If Gavin is a dictator, he would have dictated the direction of Core and forced his BIP101 on bitcoin. We are still here debating on blocksize. Mike and Gavin gave us an alternate client and community can choose to run Core as before or switch to XT. Does a dictator do that?

If you are worried about the added things in XT you can just run plain core with bigger blocks:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

Here is a version of BitcoinXT Only-BigBlocks branch, with user agent string of /Satoshi + BIP101:0.11.0/

Added two commits to update the version and copyright string:

https://bitbucket.org/bitcartel/bitcoinxt/commits/

Download Linux Binaries here:

    64-bit: https://bitbucket.org/bitcartel/bitcoinxt/downloads/bitcoin-0.11.0-linux64.tar.gz
    32-bit: https://bitbucket.org/bitcartel/bitcoinxt/downloads/bitcoin-0.11.0-linux32.tar.gz

SHA256 of binaries:

    f25d6d2d81e69457b79d9c092d21ec196dd550480dda10ff759cd169d64cbde0 bitcoin-0.11.0-linux32.tar.gz 054efbc3eb6cdf4f2ec56e4d90c8bd2be07ed8439afcc3f419ec77dcfac5c27a bitcoin-0.11.0-linux64.tar.gz 133011d35b48eafdfd0daf1af1146e4cbc18793dab3aac25eb0f99fb75def9cb src/bitcoin-0.11.0.tar.gz 6183da8a05341741466d9da3e1b1bf4037180a90da197e5ce6e03a0837cfdc8f bitcoin-linux-0.11-res.yml

Gitian signatures and instructions on how to build:

https://bitbucket.org/bitcartel/bitcoinxt-obb-gitian

If you compile your own build, please create a pull request with your Gitian key and signature.

Mike Hearn is an egotistical buffoon that believes the louder he talks, the more people will listen.

Well, they ARE listening, but what they're finding out about Mr Hearn and his assumptions of the Bitcoin userbase are way off from where reality says they should be. Starting with the IP Blacklisting/Tor "DoS" solution, which is trivially bypassed, offering no real protection at all -

Quote from - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1156489
"Bitcoin XT contains an unmentioned addition which periodically downloads
lists of Tor IP addresses for blacklisting, this has considerable privacy
implications for hapless users which are being prompted to use the
software. The feature is not clearly described, is enabled by default,
and has a switch name which intentionally downplays what it is doing
(disableipprio). Furthermore these claimed anti-DoS measures are
trivially bypassed and so offer absolutely no protection whatsoever."

If this is just ONE thing that is slipped under the radar, who the hell else knows what is on the horizon for "Bitcoin Vista". (Or, in light of all the privacy abuse, "Bitcoin 10").

Mike Hearn can take his ego and shove it up his smug anglo-saxon ass. If the changes he listed were so critical, it would be trivial to convince others that it was needed - but no, he had to take the issue to the larger internet, and in turn make it look like the direction of Bitcoin itself is suspect.

Thanks a lot Mike, you're a real "team" player.

It's pretty shameful that we aren't doing enough to combat such misinformation and that they actually felt the need to defend their entirely justified actions.  Hats off to the FUDsters, they're doing a better job than I realised of shitstirring and rocking the boat.  Now if more of us could actually stand up to the farcical notion that a fork proposal is some kind of power grab and generally reduce the amount of ignorance we're seeing on this topic, that would be great.


Points to remember:

• If you want to use an open source coin, that means anyone can modify that code and submit their own version under another name.
• Such actions are not an attack on the system and actually prevent the possibility of a single group having permanent control over development.
• Successfully forking with an alternative client does not give those developers any special power or diktat to enforce future changes on the network.
• Assuming that Core developers are the only permanent authority on what Bitcoin "is" or "should be" is an extremely dangerous mindset.
• Consensus is not a group of developers agreeing, because the people securing the network make the decisions, not the developers.

If you believed wholeheartedly that the choice you made was the right one, but everyone else disagreed and prevented you from doing it, should people really hold it against you if you made a comment that being a benevolent dictator would simply the process?  It doesn't mean he actually wants to be a benevolent dictator, it means he got fed up of the other devs dragging their heels and made an off-the-cuff comment out of frustration.  If a fork does go ahead, it doesn't give him any special powers to make further changes.  There are no dictators who have that power.  Every change has to be supported by those securing the network or the change doesn't happen.  Simple.

People may disagree even after years of marriage, really.

There are 2 possible "sane" motifs behind an action:
* it suits them better
* they believe it's the correct way

While "the correct way" can publicly argued, the other part is usually hidden.
I think that the XT story has a lot of both.


Dictatorship is imho on a "sane" motif and I'd rule it out.

I think their actions make them dictators. Gavin has admitted in the past that Bitcoin could use a "benevolent dictator"t dictator"

http://alexgorale.com/bitcoin-dictators-inflate-block-size-debate

They also can't be dictators if no one is following them.   

Does XT make Mike and Gavin dictators?

Some people are portraying XT vs Core as “Dictatorship vs Meritocratic Consensus”. This isn’t right.

Gavin and I can’t be ‘dictators’ because all we do is write software: if we go crazy, or do other things you disagree with, XT can be forked in exactly the same way as we did.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/an-xt-faq-38e78aa32ff0