Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) (Read 378926 times)

We only have to cross the fingers and wait, those type of people will never stop until the end of the days, anyway i think that the idea of the black list is too exagerate maybe is better that once every month we remember that people tried to harm bitcoin but failed... Anyway about the price drop i think that the damage will not be so big because maybe the price will only get to 375$ or remain higher then 400$ because i don't think he have the resources to make a big damage

Gavinistas are the 'dumb money' that bought BTC at the top, at $500+.

They are bitter and need to blame somebody else for BTC's failure to reach new highs.

They are grasping at straws and susceptible to people offering easy/dramatic answers, like Hearn's Gavinblocks.

Hahahahaha.

huckster hearn shilling on the banks' dime by stabbing bitcoin in the back in his ragequit moment .... no surprises there really, the guy was surely a class A prick and just demonstrated it for all to see.

I still wonder what is wrong with the people who 'respect' Hearn for his work and involvement. How could one respect someone who's development was mostly very bad & a person who has just backstabbed the whole community because he was unable to acquire Bitcoin and become its dictator? He should be put on a Bitcoin black list (list of shame) for all eternity (we need to make one & I just might feel tempted to do so). Let's just hope that the damage to the price doesn't extend further and is just temporary.

That's Thermos and Blockstream's fault.

I know it's true because I read it on /r/R3CEV (formerly known as /r/BTC).   

Will keep the thread open for awhile so everyone can partake in dancing on the grave as we celebrate Mike's memory.

Seeing as Mike cared enough to have his obituaries penned up by the New York Time it's only right to include a posthumous mention in this very thread.

With no further ado here is the very best rendition of today's events with commentary from Qntra.


For reference here is the market's reaction to Gavin Andresen & Mike Hearn's one two punch. Always good for squeezing freeloading weak hands.



Don't forget to buy the dip and have a thought for Mike! Another one bites the dust but don't expect honeybadger to care.

This, gentlemen is the curtain call.

After much consideration I've decided to turn the page on this thread in light of the most recent developments but also so that it stops paying lip service to the lying fraudster above and his cohort of deception artists. (Remind me not to ever create another thread without making it self-moderated)

It is clear that we now have a path forward out of this arguable gridlock thanks to the hard work of knowledgeable but most importantly resilient people. (https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases)

Although it was never a consideration that a merry bunch of loud mouths with no authority could hijack the project and hardfork Bitcoin into inexistence the schism was of a great service to everyone involved with Bitcoin in that it help identify the malicious actors and to some extent purge them from the ecosystem.

The leaders of this governance coup are now nowhere to be seen, Mike Hearn having revealed themselves as the villain he always was is now gone working full time for the bankers he had probably always been in cahoots with. Gavin Andresen has taken residency over at a forum populated by notorious scammer cypherdoc and dangerous, sociopath, charlatan Peter R. After previously advocating for what was deemed a "safe" immediate increase to 20MB, he is now figuratively begging on his knees for 2MB "compromise" only for the sake of forcing a contentious hard fork on Bitcoin in order to undermine the trust of investors in what projects to be the most important year for Bitcoin yet.

As for the groups of shills they've spawned their "community" is in shambles largely because of the self-admitted fractious tendencies.

In what proved to be its strongest menace to date it is now safe to say Bitcoin has once again demonstrated its value and the strength of its antifragile nature.

Seeing as I can't bother responding anymore to the endless barrage of lies and deception spewed here by the shills (and I certainly understand why others have already given up) it would be a disservice to more naive & gullible individuals to leave the thread open and provide a stage for these scammers.

Nonetheless it was a good ride and proved to be a most informative experience. I'd like to thank all of the honest contributors who've helped separate the wheat from the chaff (you know who you are). A special mention for iCEBREAKER for being the originator of the #REKT movement. It was an honor to carry the torch.

To the rest of you contemptible, lying ph0rkers understand that by the grace of the internet your performances and subsequent downfall will forever be preserved for posterity and serve as a tell-tale of the consequences of going against Bitcoin.

May your souls rest in peace.

Long live Bitcoin!

The debate is in part about increasing the blocksize limit. Satoshi did comment extensively about the blocksize limit and he did predict the development of pools and asics, which makes it relevant to the discussion. Having an extensive vision for Bitcoin is important when considering these questions.

You make a lot of references to Satoshi.
Like a religious nut job you speak of "Satoshi's vision".

Let me guess. He told you in a dream that he wanted XT and BU everything else you advocate?

Satoshi hasn't commented on the current blocksize debate so it's pointless to bring him into the debate.

More of a statist shill IMO.

I am sorry for my strong reaction, this has been a common misconception which I thought not a lot of people still prescribed to. I think that you might be mistaken about this, which I would not blame you for since a lot of people including some of the Bitcoin media did repeat this as if it was truth, however if I am wrong please correct me in what I am saying here.

All of the extra features within XT except for the blocksize are optional, since they are not consensus critical. Furthermore the "blacklisting" feature you are referring to is not a blacklisting feature at all but a DDOS prevention measure. I had explained this in more depth when it was first released, instead of looking for one of my old quotes or explaining this in more depth again I did actually stumble upon somebody else explaining it in LTB earlier today, I thought that cryptonaut explained it well.

Before anyone calls me an XT shill, I am presently actively supporting BU. I did always say that I would most likely support a third alternative. Even though I might still get caught up defending XT, my interest is in defending the truth. This blacklisting accusation is not accurate regardless of what anyone might think of BIP101 or XT.

The great thing is that we do have a third alternative now, one that can even be considered a compromise in terms of the blocksize schedule. We could all agree on a two megabyte limit for example under BU, give us time to better understand its effects, and we would not need to predict technological growth. This same process could then be used to raise the limit again in a decentralized and emergent fashion. I can imagine how many critics of BIP101 should be happy with such a solution, I certainly am myself as a critic of Core. In many ways I think that Bitcoin Unlimited is transcending this debate, while providing a synthesis to many of our discussions.

Whoah. Back up the bus.

The sad reality is the XT contains a lot more than what it says on the tin. XT was sold as 'Core with a larger maxblocksize'. The reality is that XT also contains (amongst other things) the foundation of a counter-fungibility blacklisting system.

I assume this may be what tvbcof is referring to as 'same problems of the fiat system', though I may be wrong. Though I'd like to know what tvbcof is lumping in with 'and its ilk'.

I'd have been running XT for some time now, had it not been for these rotten easter eggs. Perhaps that sulfurous odor is these rotten eggs buried in the bowels of XT, rather than what you perceive as 'absolute bullshit'.

Ex. 1: <> said x, y, and z about foo. The implications of x, y, and z include a, b, and c. As you can see from this, foo has problems.

Ex. 2 <> said foo has problems.

One of the above is an appeal to authority, the other is not. Your post was in this form of Ex. 2.

Quote from: jbreher on December 31, 2015, 04:14:19 PM

I see that you are trying to build in the mind the reader the impression that Gavin has declared that the BU codebase has resulted in a faulty executable program. Unless Gavin has issued further input to the BU review, you are mischaracterizing his statement. Nothing i have read in his comments would support that position.

You can easily see what Gavin wrote a few posts back in this thread.