Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 119. (Read 378996 times)

This is simply just not true and you just stating this also does not make it true. I have not ignored what you have said. You have also not pointed out any fallacies, if this was a debate I could claim victory. I prefer to treat these discussions more as a dialectic however, as opposed to a debate. In a dialectic we are both right and we are both wrong, through the process of philosophical discourse we can both reach a synthesis of our believes which would represent a more true understanding.

You are again misrepresenting my argument. Just because a project is open source it does not mean that it is therefore on the extreme end of the spectrum of decentralization. Therefore just because a project is open source it does not end all debate on the degree of decentralization that such a project possesses. This is obviously a flawed argument and you simply repeating this without acknowledging my response does not prove it wrong. I have even mentioned Proof of Work as another factor on top of open source which makes Bitcoin even more decentralized then other open source projects and which makes measuring decentralization more complex and nuanced.

I have never said that an open source project is not decentralized, which is different to saying that decentralization and centralization are not on a binary scale.

You are again here completely ignoring my arguments, I have argued that influence is a form of power. I can give you examples of this.

The Pope of the catholic church has massive power, but his greatest power derives not from being the head of state or of being in control of great wealth, his greatest power derives from the influence he has over more then a billion Catholics. Another example could be great political leaders of the past like Gandhi, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King these people rose from places of insignificance politically speaking purely because of the influence they garnered among other people. In the Bitcoin world today a person that is comparable to this is Andreas Antonopoulos, if he threw his hat into either side of the fork it would garner more support because of the respect and influence he commands. Andreas Antonopoulos has been tactfully neutral in this regard over the course of this blocksize debate, he does however support increasing the blocksize.

Like I said before I have studied politics so for you to say that influence is not a form of power, I do find rather untenable. To make this clear I will quote the first paragraph of Wikipedia on politics:

This is simply not true, maybe this is what you need to tell yourself in order to ignore reason.

This is absolutely false, I have gone through great effort to respond to your arguments, my most recent response certainly is evidence of this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12774393

You saying this does not make it true, people can read this for themselves and decide which position has the most merit. I did also clearly state in my previous post that my favored proposal is BIP100 not BIP101, however that I will continue to support BIP101 until BIP100 is implemented regardless of who does the implementation.

you are free to fork off anytime, the sooner being the best, obviously.

Yes. Hearn triggered competition to the dev monopoly. But I know, monopolists hate choice.

That particular argument has its own perilous pitfalls.  Bitcoin is supposed to function without a controlling entity, so there shouldn't be a single individual to go running to every time there's a disagreement.  That should be the case whether it's Satoshi Nakamoto, Adam Back, Gavin Andresen, Nick Szabo, or whoever else people want to nominate to speak as if it were their sole decision to make.  Such individuals shouldn't be quoted as though their words were gospel, as happens too often in this thread. Those securing the network make the decisions.

This whole argument just proves how precarious the technology seems to most.  Satoshi Nakamoto, where are you when you're needed?  If you're quietly monitoring this thread, can we get a little feedback?  And, Sunny King, what are your thoughts on big mining groups controlling the future direction of the block chain ledger? 

Some people want to win instead of admitting to be wrong.. These are the people who need to remove from power in order to get to the next step in human evolution

VeritasSapere---it's obvious to anyone reading that you have ignored nearly everything i wrote and simply continued to repeat your opinions as if they are valid responses. merely writing a response is not sufficient to prevail in a debate. you show no respect for the practice of debate and you thrive off of fallacies (which i have pointed out several times) and arguments from repetition instead of addressing the points directed at you. i've continually pointed out these dishonest tactics, yet you continue to use them. there are plenty of examples, but here is one:


whether they exist "on a spectrum" doesn't address the argument that an open source project is on one extreme of that spectrum. stating that there is a difference between "centralized" and "decentralized" is not an argument, let alone does it prove me wrong.

more importantly, my argument was that an open source project is decentralized. since you disagree, addressing my point involves proving yours, as you are continually suggesting that development in regards to Core can characterized by concentration of power. since no developer has any power, authority or control to force any economic participant to do anything, i'd ask that you prove that claim in accordance with common usage. merely stating that some people have a more respected opinion than others is not proof that they have power, authority or control to force any economic participant to do anything.

as indicated here, your arguments are just deflections and statements of your opinion. this is true of virtually every response you have made here, so i can't possibly justify taking the time to explain each similar instance of illogical argument. since my first post in this thread, you've made no effort to respond to my arguments, so i'm not sure why i should continue responding to yours. again---quoting what i wrote and writing something in response =/= addressing the points that i made.

it's quickly becoming clear that you are not interested in a reasoned, logical discussion, but rather to establish the appearance that your (and XT's) position is legitimate.

Fixed it.  No charge.

Exactly.

Well I hope that those schools pick only the threads on posts that should really be studied, if you know what I'm talking about.

The greatest disruption of mankind ever since the internet is being forged on forums like this. The threads on this forum will be studied on schools. Our posts will be studied by kids to try to understand the transition from money 1.0 to money 2.0. We are the makers of history, and remember to not fall for false prophetXT's

Ironicly both you and icebreaker have equeted Bitcoin XT as an attack on Bitcoin, I can argue that attacking Bitcoin is wrong so therefore forking in the way that XT does which I consider legitimate is according to you wrong. If you insist I will search my post history and find more specific examples, but I do not even know what the point of that would be, why do I even need to prove what other people have said, to you?


I think it is legitimate to fork Bitcoin with 51%, it might be ill advised but it is not wrong, since this represents the freedom and will of the participants of the Bitcoin network. Nobody is forcing the miners to do anything, they have the free choice to point their hash power wherever they want. Bitcoin is a type of democracy where the economic majority rules. However unlike democratic states, tyranny of the majority is impossible under the consensus mechanism of Bitcoin because the minority of such a split can choose to stay with the old rules in effect splitting Bitcoin in two. This is a good thing and a beautiful solution to the age old problem of tyranny of the majority. This is why a temporary majority can not force its will on the minority as you claim.

I know what it means, you know consensus did exist before Bitcoin. Do me a favor and learn more about political philosophy and history. Then you would realize that consensus or unanimity is impossible among large groups of people. Which is why we need to build these political structures in order to best approximate effective decision making processes. Within Bitcoin this mechanism exists as the consensus mechanism, it is called consensus because most of the time there is unanimity however when fork events happen because of disagreement, then unanimity becomes impossible, it can then only be resolved through a fork. This is the decision making process of Bitcoin to think that we can all just agree with each other is completely ignoring human nature and the lessons taught by history.

Because consensus is required for transaction validity. Yet only fifty one percent is required to fork Bitcoin. You are confusing the different functions of the Bitcoin network.


it's almost as if you sit with a thesaurus next to you, believing that using the ideal synonym will win the argument.

firstly, re-read what you wrote earlier:

secondly:

You have not acknowledged my point that influence is a form of power. I understand that development is external to the protocol but "power" in Bitcoin is not only reflected in the protocol.


You are the one that is being dismissive of my arguments by not acknowledging them. I have even directly discussed these issues in the article I wrote on the subject.


They have authority over the Core implementation and they have a large amount of influence and reverence from the community. This does classify as power and authority.

I have admitted to not being an expert in mathematics and computer networking, however attempting to calculate the actual numbers involved is the opposite of me dismissing the technical issues and certainly does prove your accusation wrong. Furthermore I have requested that anyone can correct this basic and admittedly crude formula and improve it or point me towards better research, so far nobody has done so. Which is why for you to criticize me without actually presenting a better calculation is really quite a hollow criticism.

Counter example:

I do not think that this is a good reason to avoid contentious hard forks. Surely you can understand why I do not think it is wrong to support controversial decisions, I vote according to my conscience.

Centralization and decentralization lie on a spectrum and it certainly can be subjective. Furthermore saying that I am using a dishonest form of debate implies that I am dishonest, you are attacking my character not my arguments by saying that, therefore it is ad hominem.

I never argued that because of peoples ignorance Core is bad that would be ridiculous, you are now guilty of using a straw man. I am sorry to break the news to you but Bitcoin is a type of democracy, much better then the democratic states we are used to but none the less some of the same problems still accompany Bitcoin and it even introduces some new ones as well.

The analogies to modern democracy are not irrelevant, you are in danger of ignoring history.

This is a good question, I do not think that Bitcoin should become a technocracy centered around Bitcoin Core, which I feel like you sometimes are leaning towards. I think that these questions about the future of Bitcoin are multidisciplinary in nature. The technical experts are important for these questions but so are the political thinkers and the economists. Since Bitcoin has far reaching political consequences while also depended upon certain economic theory. This blockchain debate is a great example where economics plays a very important role in our different conceptions of Bitcoin, the concept of a fee market is a good example of this. Furthermore decentralization is predominantly a political concept favored for political reasons. We could just as easily favor centralization and get the technical experts to build that instead. Our philosophy and principles of decentralization are a result of our subjective ideologies, which are the product of political thought.


Seriously? Proof of work allows for even more decentralization in the decision making process compared to other open source projects.


That decentralization and centralization exists on a spectrum already proves you wrong. It is not either decentralized or not, that is a oversimplification of the situation.

No

Not one?

"more debate prolongs the stalemate, which is the preferred outcome of Team Core" (iCE)

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12065654

In Bitcoin, the miners dictates the rules. If they do not like it, the protocol will not be implemented. 32 MB is fine for the next 5 years, when side chain will be available, and there will be more off chain transactions. This will relieve the pressure on the main chain and put a cap of fee.

Not tonight dear.

Yes, by then the blockthestream core will be history as the dominant dev team.

 

Right, just like this time when they almost fucking broke it with their stupid SPV mining act which most likely they still run today. The miners' incentive is profit.


32x more political ideologists such as yourself. Yeah that'll go over really well..