Pages:
Author

Topic: Amazing at what money can do to a human (Read 1412 times)

hero member
Activity: 952
Merit: 503
September 18, 2015, 09:39:55 AM
#22
Don't ever make something that we created do something bad to us
hero member
Activity: 807
Merit: 500
September 18, 2015, 09:21:05 AM
#21
The faulty logic that he and others are pushing that leads you to believe this is the suggestion that any specific group of people does or should "control" the code.  Even if BIP101 passed due to XT adoption, Core would be updated to support that long before it happened and people who don't like other aspects of XT would switch back to core, so "2 guys" wouldn't have "control" at all.  However, by censoring and yelling "altcoin" he is actually supporting centralization by supporting "control" by "more than 2 guys".
OK, since it's a hard fork, to keep Core able to "follow" the blockchain it would probably have the BIP101 code aswell.
But that doesn't change that just really only two guys can make a soft fork or any other type of change that could affect only a XT-only blockchain. Mike is very clear about his "dictatorship" that if he and Gavin want it, they will do it, but of course, if even the BIP101 isn't well accepted then probably XT will die soon.
So, yes, they want to control, as of now, whole "XT Core" by only two guys. They want easier consensus reducing the amount of people involved, that's pretty stupid IMHO.
Any block size increase will be a hard fork and no hard fork has occurred regarding block size.  Since there has been no fork, there is no "XT-only blockchain."  If a hard fork were to occur and both chains were to survive, then bitcoinXT would no longer be bitcoin, my comments simply relay why I don't believe that would happen to begin with.  If that did happen, then it wouldn't matter to bitcoin users, and the XT chain would likely die after being pumped and dumped.  However, all of this is completely beside my point, which is that neither the Core Devs nor the XT Devs should nor do "control" the code, because in an open source environment, anyone with the right skillset can change the code as they see fit.
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000
English <-> Portuguese translations
September 18, 2015, 06:09:42 AM
#20
The faulty logic that he and others are pushing that leads you to believe this is the suggestion that any specific group of people does or should "control" the code.  Even if BIP101 passed due to XT adoption, Core would be updated to support that long before it happened and people who don't like other aspects of XT would switch back to core, so "2 guys" wouldn't have "control" at all.  However, by censoring and yelling "altcoin" he is actually supporting centralization by supporting "control" by "more than 2 guys".
OK, since it's a hard fork, to keep Core able to "follow" the blockchain it would probably have the BIP101 code aswell.
But that doesn't change that just really only two guys can make a soft fork or any other type of change that could affect only a XT-only blockchain. Mike is very clear about his "dictatorship" that if he and Gavin want it, they will do it, but of course, if even the BIP101 isn't well accepted then probably XT will die soon.
So, yes, they want to control, as of now, whole "XT Core" by only two guys. They want easier consensus reducing the amount of people involved, that's pretty stupid IMHO.
hero member
Activity: 807
Merit: 500
September 18, 2015, 05:05:59 AM
#19
The "censorship" is about Bitcoin XT, not about blocksize limit.
He changed nothing, he just wants a decent solution that doesn't move the control of the code to just 2 guys.
And other than that, BIP101 is a fail, no miner aproves that.
The faulty logic that he and others are pushing that leads you to believe this is the suggestion that any specific group of people does or should "control" the code.  Even if BIP101 passed due to XT adoption, Core would be updated to support that long before it happened and people who don't like other aspects of XT would switch back to core, so "2 guys" wouldn't have "control" at all.  However, by censoring and yelling "altcoin" he is actually supporting centralization by supporting "control" by "more than 2 guys".
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
September 17, 2015, 08:50:49 PM
#18
At this stage, money is not a big concern, my view of priority:
1. Survival
2. Security
3. Stability
4. Functionality

Szabo's view of priority
1. Consensus
2. Decentralization
3. Store of value
4. Payment system

Many of those aspects are linked and affecting each other: With reduced functionality you might get less user, which in turn impact the security of the network. But still, if every home user can run a node then the system will be extremely robust: The cost of attacking the network rises exponentially when the number of nodes rises following an attack
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1010
Professional Native Greek Translator (2000+ done)
September 17, 2015, 09:14:29 AM
#17
money is ruling the whole wide world
sr. member
Activity: 518
Merit: 250
September 17, 2015, 07:10:48 AM
#16

However, enforcing a max block size is safer. It's not totally clear that an unlimited max block size would work. So I tend to prefer a max block size for Bitcoin. Some other cryptocurrency can try the other method. I'd like the limit to be set in a more decentralized, free-market way than a fixed constant in the code, though.



Theymos hasn't changed his position at all.
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000
English <-> Portuguese translations
September 17, 2015, 06:33:42 AM
#15
It's weird indeed how he changed his mind from fully supportive to his censorship . Still he is free to change his mind like he wants maybe after a couple of years he learned more about this and decided that it is not about BTC or maybe he is actually supportive but simply see BitcoinXt as altcoin .

Quote
However, enforcing a max block size is safer. It's not totally clear that an unlimited max block size would work. So I tend to prefer a max block size for Bitcoin. Some other cryptocurrency can try the other method. I'd like the limit to be set in a more decentralized, free-market way than a fixed constant in the code, though.

However I want to know something , what are you saying OP Theymos is being paid by who exactly ?

The "censorship" is about Bitcoin XT, not about blocksize limit.
He changed nothing, he just wants a decent solution that doesn't move the control of the code to just 2 guys.
And other than that, BIP101 is a fail, no miner aproves that.
legendary
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1016
September 17, 2015, 06:23:53 AM
#14
Many bitcoin experts even Meni says how ridiculous Theymos's stance on the XT censorship.

Frankly old bitcoiners like us can see the clear agenda in his censorship

maybe Theymos gets paid by blockstream or something like this.

Pssshhh don't say this or you might get banned!!
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1014
In Satoshi I Trust
September 17, 2015, 05:56:31 AM
#13
Many bitcoin experts even Meni says how ridiculous Theymos's stance on the XT censorship.

Frankly old bitcoiners like us can see the clear agenda in his censorship

maybe Theymos gets paid by blockstream or something like this.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
September 17, 2015, 03:24:07 AM
#12
It's acctually irrelevant what his stance was on the subject. The perceived censorship was acctually just a warning shot over the head of those people who wants to harm Bitcoin and disrupt the communication

channels on this forum and on \r\Bitcoin on Reddit to stop their brigading and shilling. It was blown up by those same people to fit their agenda and to turn more people against the Core group.

The OP is one of those people who hides behind a shill account to bash Core supporters. Let's just stop this in-fighting and write this whole XT fork off as a failure and move on.   Roll Eyes

Seems that some people hate competition.
legendary
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1070
September 17, 2015, 02:47:10 AM
#11
it's true that satoshi wasn't against an increase he even said it in some way, but this does not mean that the best solution would be to simply increase it to a random number

there should be a right plan to increase the limit without rising other problem, satoshi should have no applyed the 1MB at that time(yeah i know for ddos etc...), right now we would have one less big problem...
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1074
September 17, 2015, 02:43:35 AM
#10
It's acctually irrelevant what his stance was on the subject. The perceived censorship was acctually just a warning shot over the head of those people who wants to harm Bitcoin and disrupt the communication

channels on this forum and on \r\Bitcoin on Reddit to stop their brigading and shilling. It was blown up by those same people to fit their agenda and to turn more people against the Core group.

The OP is one of those people who hides behind a shill account to bash Core supporters. Let's just stop this in-fighting and write this whole XT fork off as a failure and move on.   Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
September 17, 2015, 02:20:06 AM
#9
Interesting. I read this the first time.

It's already in the Bitcoin Art Gallery:

https://twitter.com/btcArtGallery/status/634199739207188480
legendary
Activity: 2996
Merit: 1132
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
September 17, 2015, 02:04:19 AM
#8
Bitcoin is not just a money. It's a new whole payment processor system. It's like running a bank in your room itself. You own money as well as you own the Bank account itself. So, it can do many magic in your life style.
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
September 16, 2015, 10:26:21 PM
#7
The time of that post is January 31, 2013. More than two years have passed, many things have changed, more people are realizing the hard fork without super majority consensus is suicide
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 1083
Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile
September 16, 2015, 09:47:39 PM
#6
Interesting. I read this the first time. And it seems it means that all the accusations about theymos being onesided against bitcoin xt is proven wrong. He is clearly not against it. His decision with the altcoin thing is something i still would question. Initially he meant that this should be valid only when the fork happened, since then bitcoin xt is an altcoin for sure. Until it might become THE bitcoin. But for the moment it is THE bitcoin the same like it is bitcoin core. It does not make sense to move bitcoin xt threads to altcoin subforum.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
August 19, 2015, 10:17:46 AM
#5
Many bitcoin experts even Meni says how ridiculous Theymos's stance on the XT censorship.

Frankly old bitcoiners like us can see the clear agenda in his censorship
staff
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6152
August 19, 2015, 09:15:13 AM
#4
It's weird indeed how he changed his mind from fully supportive to his censorship . Still he is free to change his mind like he wants maybe after a couple of years he learned more about this and decided that it is not about BTC or maybe he is actually supportive but simply see BitcoinXt as altcoin .

Quote
However, enforcing a max block size is safer. It's not totally clear that an unlimited max block size would work. So I tend to prefer a max block size for Bitcoin. Some other cryptocurrency can try the other method. I'd like the limit to be set in a more decentralized, free-market way than a fixed constant in the code, though.

However I want to know something , what are you saying OP Theymos is being paid by who exactly ?
Pages:
Jump to: