The days of the totalitarians are numbered. Zero chance to stay in charge.
If you mean Hearn and his one-guy-in-charge-and-not-even-a-competent-one model, then yeah I agree.
Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 108. (Read 378996 times)
If you mean Hearn and his one-guy-in-charge-and-not-even-a-competent-one model, then yeah I agree.
The days of the totalitarians are numbered. Zero chance to stay in charge.
https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11
https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11
lel wake up princess.
core devs *are* powerless.
bitcoin has spread too much to have any viable consensus about anything that changes its fundamentals.
otoh hearndresen are just irrelevant.
The days of the totalitarians are numbered. Zero chance to stay in charge.
https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11
https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11
I never specifically stated that it was for these six points, I was referring to the article as a whole. I just do not think it is productive calling someone a petulant child and a liar in terms of having a productive discourse.
Strictly speaking, it's irrelevant, as these offensive words do not render the arguments he presented invalid. That's why I asked if these 6 points (actual arguments/statements) contained fallacies.I think the ad hominem term is used too loosely these days, and is being applied where it really shouldn't be.
I certainly do not agree with hdbuck however, censorship is not a term that is being used to loosely today. The trend of censorship in the Bitcoin community has been concerning, at least the response from most people has been reassuring. I think that most of us here do believe in freedom and that through Bitcoin we can pursue and obtain more of that state, whatever that means.
using wide definitions, loosening the meaning of whatever concept you could put your twisted little historian/philospher/whatever soclialst mind onto.
the cherry on the cake being it also appears you dont know what freedom means now.. pity.
Price is going up, I wish peace and prosperity to all.
I never specifically stated that it was for these six points, I was referring to the article as a whole. I just do not think it is productive calling someone a petulant child and a liar in terms of having a productive discourse.
Strictly speaking, it's irrelevant, as these offensive words do not render the arguments he presented invalid. That's why I asked if these 6 points (actual arguments/statements) contained fallacies.I think the ad hominem term is used too loosely these days, and is being applied where it really shouldn't be.
as it goes with cens0rshiiiiip ^^
speaking of it looks like the self-proclaimed exiles are back en masse.
i see names like rocks, Adrian-x popping up in threads like nothing had ever happened
knight22 is making pump threads in Speculation forum when 3 weeks ago he was proclaiming Bitcoin dead because block size
only waiting for Lebron James' decision now
funny how they all crawl back once bitcoin price surge.
if it was not for mickey's ultimate butthurt post, i'd say the XTards MO is to spread fud when bitcoin is doing well, escaping their toxic behavior and discourses..
I never specifically stated that it was for these six points, I was referring to the article as a whole. I just do not think it is productive calling someone a petulant child and a liar in terms of having a productive discourse.
Strictly speaking, it's irrelevant, as these offensive words do not render the arguments he presented invalid. That's why I asked if these 6 points (actual arguments/statements) contained fallacies.I think the ad hominem term is used too loosely these days, and is being applied where it really shouldn't be.
TL;DR
I never specifically stated that it was for these six points, I was referring to the article as a whole. I just do not think it is productive calling someone a petulant child and a liar in terms of having a productive discourse.
Strictly speaking, it's irrelevant, as these offensive words do not render the arguments he presented invalid. That's why I asked if these 6 points (actual arguments/statements) contained fallacies.I think the ad hominem term is used too loosely these days, and is being applied where it really shouldn't be.
I certainly do not agree with hdbuck however, censorship is not a term that is being used to loosely today. The trend of censorship in the Bitcoin community has been concerning, at least the response from most people has been reassuring. I think that most of us here do believe in freedom and that through Bitcoin we can pursue and obtain more of that state, whatever that means.
such a vague person we got here..
using wide definitions, loosening the meaning of whatever concept you could put your twisted little historian/philospher/whatever soclialst mind onto.
the cherry on the cake being it also appears you dont know what freedom means now.. pity.
I never specifically stated that it was for these six points, I was referring to the article as a whole. I just do not think it is productive calling someone a petulant child and a liar in terms of having a productive discourse.
Strictly speaking, it's irrelevant, as these offensive words do not render the arguments he presented invalid. That's why I asked if these 6 points (actual arguments/statements) contained fallacies.I think the ad hominem term is used too loosely these days, and is being applied where it really shouldn't be.
I certainly do not agree with hdbuck however, censorship is not a term that is being used to loosely today. The trend of censorship in the Bitcoin community has been concerning, at least the response from most people has been reassuring. I think that most of us here do believe in freedom and that through Bitcoin we can pursue and obtain more of that state, whatever that means.
I never specifically stated that it was for these six points, I was referring to the article as a whole. I just do not think it is productive calling someone a petulant child and a liar in terms of having a productive discourse.
Strictly speaking, it's irrelevant, as these offensive words do not render the arguments he presented invalid. That's why I asked if these 6 points (actual arguments/statements) contained fallacies.I think the ad hominem term is used too loosely these days, and is being applied where it really shouldn't be.
as it goes with cens0rshiiiiip ^^
speaking of it looks like the self-proclaimed exiles are back en masse.
i see names like rocks, Adrian-x popping up in threads like nothing had ever happened
knight22 is making pump threads in Speculation forum when 3 weeks ago he was proclaiming Bitcoin dead because block size
only waiting for Lebron James' decision now
I never specifically stated that it was for these six points, I was referring to the article as a whole. I just do not think it is productive calling someone a petulant child and a liar in terms of having a productive discourse.
Strictly speaking, it's irrelevant, as these offensive words do not render the arguments he presented invalid. That's why I asked if these 6 points (actual arguments/statements) contained fallacies.I think the ad hominem term is used too loosely these days, and is being applied where it really shouldn't be.
as it goes with cens0rshiiiiip ^^
I never specifically stated that it was for these six points, I was referring to the article as a whole. I just do not think it is productive calling someone a petulant child and a liar in terms of having a productive discourse.
Strictly speaking, it's irrelevant, as these offensive words do not render the arguments he presented invalid, as they are not used as premises of arguments, rather as conclusions. That's why I asked if these 6 points (actual arguments/statements) contained fallacies.I think the ad hominem term is used too loosely these days, and is being applied where it really shouldn't be.
There are appeals to authority and ad hominem within this piece, only point two is effected by an appeal to authority and ad hominem, point one, five and six I have already responded to separately.
I have struck out parts that were not among these 6 points (I have specifically asked for fallacies among these points).Quote
Ad Hominem:
"Full of lies and desperation of someone who risked his entire reputation on something and lost; and now strops around like a petulant child." 
he shows disagreement and then follows with an explanation
"Truth is miners have outright rejected any controversial change that does not include Bitcoin Core where the vast majority of technical experts reside." 2/ where's the appeal? it simply states the truth as it is currently
"Companies are not going to follow a renegade fork and in the end, they are going to trust the technical expertise of those who can provide long term support and have a proven track record in the field."
Quote from: VeritasSapere
This certainly is ad hominem.
"Mike claims miners will switch to BIP101 in December if Core doesn’t release a block size increase, this is a complete lie." 2/ how is that and ad hominem? he shows disagreement and then follows with an explanation Quote from: VeritasSapere
It is ad hominem because he is saying that Mike is lying, how does he know that? He could believe that what he is saying is true even if it is wrong, this is why proving that someone has lied is not always that easy because it depends on a persons motivations and intention.
"Clearly Mike is trying a game of poker here to frighten people." 2/ yep, can be considered an ad hominem, though it's not an argument, rather a conclusionQuote from: VeritasSapere
It is still attacking the person and again it is related to a persons motivations.
Appeal to Authority:"Truth is miners have outright rejected any controversial change that does not include Bitcoin Core where the vast majority of technical experts reside." 2/ where's the appeal? it simply states the truth as it is currently
Quote from: VeritasSapere
First of all this is a list of "lies", according to the article. This article goes on to imply that this will be true for the future as well by saying "Mike claims miners will switch to BIP101 in December if Core doesn’t release a block size increase, this is a complete lie. Truth is miners have outright rejected any controversial change that does not include Bitcoin Core..." So in context the truth that is being claimed is that Mike is lying about about the miners switching to BIP101 in the future because of "appeal to authority/"where the vast majority of technical experts reside".
"downstream users, rely on Bitcoin Core because they know it has the expertise and stability. XT has nothing""Companies are not going to follow a renegade fork and in the end, they are going to trust the technical expertise of those who can provide long term support and have a proven track record in the field."
There are appeals to authority and ad hominem within this piece, only point two is effected by an appeal to authority and ad hominem, point one, five and six I have already responded to separately.
I have struck out parts that were not among these 6 points (I have specifically asked for fallacies among these points). Quote
Ad Hominem:
"Full of lies and desperation of someone who risked his entire reputation on something and lost; and now strops around like a petulant child."
"Mike claims miners will switch to BIP101 in December if Core doesn’t release a block size increase, this is a complete lie." 2/ how is that and ad hominem? he shows disagreement and then follows with an explanation
"Clearly Mike is trying a game of poker here to frighten people." 2/ yep, can be considered an ad hominem, though it's not an argument, rather a conclusion
Appeal to Authority:
"Truth is miners have outright rejected any controversial change that does not include Bitcoin Core where the vast majority of technical experts reside." 2/ where's the appeal? it simply states the truth as it is currently
"downstream users, rely on Bitcoin Core because they know it has the expertise and stability. XT has nothing"
"Companies are not going to follow a renegade fork and in the end, they are going to trust the technical expertise of those who can provide long term support and have a proven track record in the field."
"Mike claims miners will switch to BIP101 in December if Core doesn’t release a block size increase, this is a complete lie." 2/ how is that and ad hominem?
he shows disagreement and then follows with an explanation"Clearly Mike is trying a game of poker here to frighten people." 2/ yep, can be considered an ad hominem, though it's not an argument, rather a conclusion
Appeal to Authority:
"Truth is miners have outright rejected any controversial change that does not include Bitcoin Core where the vast majority of technical experts reside." 2/ where's the appeal? it simply states the truth as it is currently
Jesus Christ, you have absolutely no credibility left and only serve to amuse us.
No nuns for you.
Great article by Mike Hearn, everyone should read this.
Jesus christ....are you cypherdoc's little brother by any chance?
You realize you have absolutely no credibility left and only serve to amuse us?
He refuses to admit defeat brg444, he is like some people i know from other forums that doesn't give up on their ideas even if are for fools, just ignore he/she and will stop
Great article by Mike Hearn, everyone should read this.
Jesus christ....are you cypherdoc's little brother by any chance?
You realize you have absolutely no credibility left and only serve to amuse us?
A reply by BtcDrak: https://medium.com/@btcdrak/full-of-lies-and-desperation-of-someone-who-risked-his-entire-reputation-on-something-and-lost-and-6c206e68d0cf#.9vi6d25is
This response is mainly comprised of ad hominem and appeals to authority. The developers of Core should not be the people that decide on the future of Bitcoin. It should be the economic majority instead which is best reflected through proof of work. Saying that the miners have to upgrade is not the same as them actually voting with their hash power.Furthermore Bitcoin Core is under the control of a single person, Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not after all.
Core team does not decide on the future of Bitcoin. It offers a solution, provides arguments and expertise, and the economic majority is free to decide which way to go. The same goes for XT. The truth is that the economic majority has so far decided that XT is a no-go, and Core is delivering on its promises. Deal with it.
I actually agree with this.Mike has predicted Core won't raise the limit. Let's wait and see.
I agree with this as well. Time will tell which is in part why I am confident this situation will resolve it self. Most people do want the blocksize to be increased after all, which means that if Core does fail to do so in good time then the economic majority will fork instead, one way or another. Furthermore Bitcoin Core is under the control of a single person, Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not after all.
Yep, there is no other sensible way of doing it. I'm happy with Wladimir, you seem to think Mike Hearn would be a good alternative. You're entitled to your opinion, but both the miners and the users have rejected that.
So please stop labouring the point, portraying yourself as an oppressed minority. If your views of cryptocurrency are so successful, allow them to stand on their own. There cannot be two competing designs within the same single piece of software, it simply does not work that way. The idea you're trying so hard not to explicitly support for months now has been rejected. Roundly. Help us all out and do something productive instead of yet more of your shamelessly bizarre double-think-as-an-argument output ad nauseum. You're not saying anything new, or anything that's gaining an audience.
Carlton, talking with VeritasSapere is useless, even if you quote what he wrote before, he will always deny that and start doing some mess around that instead of admit defeat, ignoring he and leave this thread only to he is the only thing we can do to calm he down and let he see who really supports XT, that by the way seems that is supported only from VeritasSapere and nobody else
Saying that BIP101 is only supported by myself is obviously false.
Dude, stop playing the victim game as i told and then i can believe you. As you can see you are making only lols for everybody and not something that makes sense because you always get around the topics i raise on this thread and yours are baseless accusation because if you could know me in real life you could see that i don't believe on this over 1Mb blocks crap because if you even try to think if bitcoin itself started with those kind of blocks bitcoin could be a reality for few people.
And with this i close any future checks on this thread because seriously i'm getting tired to tell the same thing while you still makes only lols for the entire community
Furthermore Bitcoin Core is under the control of a single person, Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not after all.
Yep, there is no other sensible way of doing it. I'm happy with Wladimir, you seem to think Mike Hearn would be a good alternative. You're entitled to your opinion, but both the miners and the users have rejected that.
So please stop labouring the point, portraying yourself as an oppressed minority. If your views of cryptocurrency are so successful, allow them to stand on their own. There cannot be two competing designs within the same single piece of software, it simply does not work that way. The idea you're trying so hard not to explicitly support for months now has been rejected. Roundly. Help us all out and do something productive instead of yet more of your shamelessly bizarre double-think-as-an-argument output ad nauseum. You're not saying anything new, or anything that's gaining an audience.
Carlton, talking with VeritasSapere is useless, even if you quote what he wrote before, he will always deny that and start doing some mess around that instead of admit defeat, ignoring he and leave this thread only to he is the only thing we can do to calm he down and let he see who really supports XT, that by the way seems that is supported only from VeritasSapere and nobody else
Saying that BIP101 is only supported by myself is obviously false.
Furthermore Bitcoin Core is under the control of a single person, Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not after all.
Yep, there is no other sensible way of doing it. I'm happy with Wladimir, you seem to think Mike Hearn would be a good alternative. You're entitled to your opinion, but both the miners and the users have rejected that.There cannot be two competing designs within the same single piece of software, it simply does not work that way.
In Bitcoin when there is a fundamental disagreement it can split, whether caused by a majority or minority is even irrelevant. It does not matter how much you believe consensus can be forced on people it is simply not how Bitcoin works, whether a "technical authority" agrees or not.The idea you're trying so hard not to explicitly support for months now has been rejected. Roundly. Help us all out and do something productive instead of yet more of your shamelessly bizarre double-think-as-an-argument output ad nauseum. You're not saying anything new, or anything that's gaining an audience.
You do not speak for the countless more people that are reading this thread. The simple idea that I support is that I want to increase the blocksize and I do not "trust" Core to do so in time. Whether this idea has been rejected is up to each individual to decide and time will tell who is on the right side of history. Jump to: