Andreas Antonopoulos Supports XT, But Mostly He Supports Consensus...

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 23, 2015, 09:27:47 AM

Look at hdbuck's evidence. According to him, giving a talk to CIA makes one an asset of CIA. Roll Eyes

It is suspicious that they invited Gavin. They could have invited someone who would talk about how evil bitcoin is, but they didn't. It's not evidence at all.

1K

member

Activity: 64

Merit: 10

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 22, 2015, 10:22:07 PM

Andreas Antonopoulos :

Quote

If you really believe that Mike Hearn and Gavin Andreson are wrong, then why are you worried? If they are wrong, then they are going to launch Bitcoin XT and no one is going to adopt it. And if you are worried that a lot of people are going to adopt it, then who the hell put you in charge to say no to all of these people? Maybe they should be adopting it.

I also agree with him here, but I still think Hearn and Andreson have turned into dicks.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: hdbuck on August 23, 2015, 09:10:21 AM

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/80785477342478336

also:

http://qntra.net/2015/02/there-is-nothing-new-in-the-world-except-for-the-history-you-didnt-know/

but obviously its not like we have the "contract" of any of them 'assets'... they friggin "secret" service remember?

but this XT coup, with low life socialist propaganda is typical modus operandi of tptb.

Answer this -- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/blockstream-or-bitcoinxt-those-are-your-choices-gentlemen-1158259.

Edit:

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 23, 2015, 09:21:23 AM

It's not.

It usually never is. There are various ways of making an informed guess, but of those candidates that display the most suspicious characteristics, there is frequently no death bed confession or suchlike. They're often killed or imprisoned for life under suspicious circumstances before they ever get a chance to do so (Lee Harvey Oswald being a possible exception, the "I'm just a patsy" line simultaneously served as a confession of his role, not just a denial of culpability).

I suspect that Hearn and Anresen are working with "five eyes" people, as there are good grounds to do so. There is zero evidence to support it at present.

Look at hdbuck's evidence. According to him, giving a talk to CIA makes one an asset of CIA. Roll Eyes

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 23, 2015, 09:04:43 AM

How is Gavin and Hearn a known CIA or NSA asset?

It's not.

It usually never is. There are various ways of making an informed guess, but of those candidates that display the most suspicious characteristics, there is frequently no death bed confession or suchlike. They're often killed or imprisoned for life under suspicious circumstances before they ever get a chance to do so (Lee Harvey Oswald being a possible exception, the "I'm just a patsy" line simultaneously served as a confession of his role, not just a denial of culpability).

I suspect that Hearn and Andresen are working with "five eyes" people, as there are good grounds to do so. There is zero evidence to support it at present.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/80785477342478336

also:

http://qntra.net/2015/02/there-is-nothing-new-in-the-world-except-for-the-history-you-didnt-know/

but obviously its not like we have the "contract" of any of them 'assets'... they friggin "secret" service remember?

but this XT coup, with low life socialist propaganda is typical modus operandi of tptb.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: hdbuck on August 23, 2015, 08:49:51 AM

-snip-
[ color=red][ u][ b]Two known CIA/NSA assets infiltrated in the Bitcoin community - Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn - have joined forces to push a hastily concocted privacy nightmare/scamcoin, which they call Bitcoin-XT.

How is Gavin and Hearn a known CIA or NSA asset?

Quote from: hdbuck on August 23, 2015, 08:49:51 AM

[ size=18pt]It is currently completely irrelevant, owing to an absolute lack of financial, economical, technical or social support. [ /size][ /b][ /u][ /color]

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

antonopoulus is a scumbag and he will bur in hell.

also...

Two known CIA/NSA assets infiltrated in the Bitcoin community - Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn - have joined forces to push a hastily concocted privacy nightmare/scamcoin, which they call Bitcoin-XT.

It is currently completely irrelevant, owing to an absolute lack of financial, economical, technical or social support.

Mickeyb

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Move On !!!!!!

Everybody should watch an interview, it's a really good one like most of his stuff!

He pretty much calls for calming of the situation. He thinks that Bitcoin dynamics will take care of the problem and that in order to scale in the future, we will need all of the solutions. Bigger block size, lightning network, higher fees and all the rest.

He also brings interesting observation, that nobody's right and that we won't know who is right until we don't try the solutions. According to him, even Satoshi might have been wrong in many occasions in the past.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Holliday on August 23, 2015, 01:52:11 AM

What if there is no consensus? Does that mean a certain amount of people have to step in line or else? What if there is actual demand from actual users for both sides of a fork? Which group is supposed to give in so that we can achieve consensus?

I have been involved with Bitcoin for a long time now. I would consider myself a huge fan, and even a part time cheerleader. If the project moves in a direction I do not agree with, I have two options. Support a fork, or if I'm so alone in that support that the fork has no legs and fails, stop using Bitcoin altogether.

Which is best for the future of cryptocurrency? Someone moves to a different solution, keeping that solution viable for a possible future where other solutions have failed, or giving up on cryptocurrency entirely and putting my time and money into something I feel more worthwhile?

I support the freedom to choose, even if that means a fork for Bitcoin.

75% means 1 in 4 are dissatisfied with the decision. I'm using Bitcoin because I'm the 1 in 7000 (made up number to make a point) that is dissatisfied with the status quo. Consensus says just use fiat. No thanks.

seems that a real split is possible. The next battle would be which one gets to call itself Bitcoin.

glub0x

legendary

Activity: 892

Merit: 1013

Quote from: NorrisK on August 23, 2015, 03:50:58 AM

A unanimous decision over something like this is a utopic view. This will never happen due to projects people are associated with and just the general ego of humans.

I agree
But why everybody uses the word consensus? Is it so hard to say majority of 75% or super majority or whatever? Consensus over this block thing will never happen and saying there is one when 25% disagree sound very unpleasant to me.

NorrisK

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1007

Quote from: glub0x on August 23, 2015, 02:12:01 AM

Quote from: Holliday on August 23, 2015, 01:52:11 AM

75% means 1 in 4 are dissatisfied with the decision. I'm using Bitcoin because I'm the 1 in 7000 (made up number to make a point) that is dissatisfied with the status quo. Consensus says just use fiat. No thanks.

this!
Consensus is 99,9%. The right word that should replace consensus in every topic here is "super majority" or something like that....

A unanimous decision over something like this is a utopic view. This will never happen due to projects people are associated with and just the general ego of humans.

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 22, 2015, 11:16:14 PM

He seems to indicate that he has faith that the only way for XT to actually reach 75% consensus if it is truly the best solution. He has complete confidence in the consensus model and I am with him. I don't think 75% consensus will ever arrive at a solution that is bad for bitcoin. (this is also why I don't think XT will get 75% consensus, I am hoping for a block size increase on Core)

Dress it up any way you like. It is a 51% attack and this is how you do it - not with huge investments in hardware of your own to out hash the existing network. But with propaganda and your own client to sway existing miners.

It needs to happen if only to wake up developers that are in denial that it is actually possible. It reminds me of that XKCD cartoon,

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

I understand that Hitler had a popular following too Cheesy

The difference being that the people that followed Hitler weren't just doing anything Hitler said because they'd been put in a tight position, the German people of the 1930's weren't being pressurised at all! They evaluated everything Hitler said and did on it's merit!

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Leave it open for debate for both sides to state their case and then leave it up to consensus to make the final decision. Let the two sides hash it out, until we find a clear winner.

This is a integral part of Bitcoin and a natural process that has to play out for it to be successful. { A community decision }

If you feel strongly about this, get more involved and start some nodes and hash it out. It was developed to have consensus at it's central... whatever side win this, has the

consensus and we have to abide to that or move on to another Alt coin where consensus does not matter. Roll Eyes

glub0x

legendary

Activity: 892

Merit: 1013

Quote from: Holliday on August 23, 2015, 01:52:11 AM

75% means 1 in 4 are dissatisfied with the decision. I'm using Bitcoin because I'm the 1 in 7000 (made up number to make a point) that is dissatisfied with the status quo. Consensus says just use fiat. No thanks.

this!
Consensus is 99,9%. The right word that should replace consensus in every topic here is "super majority" or something like that....

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

What if there is no consensus? Does that mean a certain amount of people have to step in line or else? What if there is actual demand from actual users for both sides of a fork? Which group is supposed to give in so that we can achieve consensus?

I have been involved with Bitcoin for a long time now. I would consider myself a huge fan, and even a part time cheerleader. If the project moves in a direction I do not agree with, I have two options. Support a fork, or if I'm so alone in that support that the fork has no legs and fails, stop using Bitcoin altogether.

Which is best for the future of cryptocurrency? Someone moves to a different solution, keeping that solution viable for a possible future where other solutions have failed, or giving up on cryptocurrency entirely and putting my time and money into something I feel more worthwhile?

I support the freedom to choose, even if that means a fork for Bitcoin.

75% means 1 in 4 are dissatisfied with the decision. I'm using Bitcoin because I'm the 1 in 7000 (made up number to make a point) that is dissatisfied with the status quo. Consensus says just use fiat. No thanks.

Delek

full member

Activity: 157

Merit: 103

Salí para ver

Repost:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/whats-the-opinion-of-andreas-m-antonopoulos-about-the-fork-1159316

BitProdigy

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 115

We Are The New Wealthy Elite, Gentlemen

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 22, 2015, 11:05:37 PM

I didn't watch the video yet but the quote you referenced doesn't mention any fork. He is basically saying there's no threat at all to Bitcoin. You can only hurt yourself by stubbornly sticking with a fork that has no support.

He seems to indicate that he has faith that the only way for XT to actually reach 75% consensus if it is truly the best solution. He has complete confidence in the consensus model and I am with him. I don't think 75% consensus will ever arrive at a solution that is bad for bitcoin. (this is also why I don't think XT will get 75% consensus, I am hoping for a block size increase on Core)

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 22, 2015, 10:22:07 PM

Andreas Antonopoulos :

Quote

If you really believe that Mike Hearn and Gavin Andreson are wrong, then why are you worried? If they are wrong, then they are going to launch Bitcoin XT and no one is going to adopt it. And if you are worried that a lot of people are going to adopt it, then who the hell put you in charge to say no to all of these people? Maybe they should be adopting it.

You can be a small-blockest, or you can be a large-blockest, but what you can't do is go against consensus. That will punish you with a one hundred percent loss of income… The whole point of consensus among the developers and consensus on a reference implementation is to lead to smoother hard forks and consensus in the network. But at the end of the day, none of it matters, the only thing that matters is consensus on the network, the runtime consensus of actuality over desire.

And so, if you say that you cannot do hard forks that change the network consensus, what you are saying is that you are giving the developers the ultimate control and monopoly control over the reference implementation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jqpKEHYGE0

I agree with Antonopoulous, the only thing that matters is consensus. The only threat to bitcoin is those that threaten to split the network by going against consensus. Those who think that 75% of the network can be fooled, are the fools themselves.

I didn't watch the video yet but the quote you referenced doesn't mention any fork. He is basically saying there's no threat at all to Bitcoin. You can only hurt yourself by stubbornly sticking with a fork that has no support.

BitProdigy

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 115

We Are The New Wealthy Elite, Gentlemen

Andreas Antonopoulos :

Quote

If you really believe that Mike Hearn and Gavin Andreson are wrong, then why are you worried? If they are wrong, then they are going to launch Bitcoin XT and no one is going to adopt it. And if you are worried that a lot of people are going to adopt it, then who the hell put you in charge to say no to all of these people? Maybe they should be adopting it.

You can be a small-blockest, or you can be a large-blockest, but what you can't do is go against consensus. That will punish you with a one hundred percent loss of income… The whole point of consensus among the developers and consensus on a reference implementation is to lead to smoother hard forks and consensus in the network. But at the end of the day, none of it matters, the only thing that matters is consensus on the network, the runtime consensus of actuality over desire.

And so, if you say that you cannot do hard forks that change the network consensus, what you are saying is that you are giving the developers the ultimate control and monopoly control over the reference implementation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jqpKEHYGE0

I agree with Antonopoulous, the only thing that matters is consensus. The only threat to bitcoin is those that threaten to split the network by going against consensus. Those who think that 75% of the network can be fooled, are the fools themselves. and those that say we cannot do hard forks are giving the core developers ultimate dictorial monopoly control over Bitcoin, the real hostile takeover.

Topic: Andreas Antonopoulos Supports XT, But Mostly He Supports Consensus... (Read 1060 times)