Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 152. (Read 378996 times)

Haha fair enough. 

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development (e.g., as depicted in this animated GIF)?

Everybody knows that the year around the last halving (Spring 12 - spring 13) saw a tenfold increase of txs. This will be prevented next year if the Politbüro will be successful to block the stream with the limit. But they won't. We will have alternate clients that are ready.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes you can! And you will! Your stalinist and bolshevik ideas of 'consus' within a Politbüro, fearing competition as hell, censoring opposition, will be forked off into nirvana.

If the probability of forking could be understood and made arbitrarily small, would you agree that multiple implementations were a positive think for Bitcoin?


Do you really believe I am trying to kill Bitcoin?

How exactly are you gonna make it easier? By hijacking core discussions with your GIFs? I suspect no amount of GIFs and fancy charts can convince competent developers to follow your ideas.

We already have multiple implementations, we have core forks like XT. Where are they? If you believe in free markets, then maybe you just need to accept that these alternatives have failed to deliver, in the eyes of the majority?

Could the dictionary definition of "hyprocrisy" ever be adequate to describe the above? 

Multiple implementations of the consensus rules will elicit unplanned chain forks, and the chaos that would ensue. This is clearly what you intend Peter; to kill Bitcoin with "kindness".

Before you attempt to repudiate this, I'd also recommend you attempt to explain why you and your band of truth distorters reprensent the only tiny minority people that believe your version of reality.

You know very well who is somebody and who is not. Nobody is discussing the 'ideas' of the two notorious ad hominem clowns here (despite full time propaganda spamming by brg).

You don't say anything new; in fact, you're reiterating your claims as if I never challenged them.
I'll try again, the last time: there are network topology issues which result in an uneven block propagation. Uneven propagation alters the orphan race outcomes for different players (mostly pools), making some of them more profitable. The larger blocks get, the larger is the financial difference. This is what alters the incentive structure.

You are claiming that you can vote with your feet, and I hate to repeat that a lot of hashing power is industrial scale, and is attached to a particular pool. Whether there is a million 1 GH/s miners going back and forth is irrelevant, their combined hashpower is what matters. I don't have any statistical data, but I suspect the majority of hashpower is already industrial-scale and is rigid w/r/t to pools.

I think you could simply state that you don't agree with all of the above, and I will be okay with that. I just don't want to waste my time engaging in a unproductive discussion.

I believe this is a common logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc. Moreover, I couldn't find anything that can support your claim. According to organofcorti, there were no significant plunges in AntPool hashrate during June-August, and it has risen over that two-fold in the period. And has risen since then as well.

It's good Peter R made this post. For those of you unfamiliar with academia, if someone calls you "Professor" and you're not a professor (or "Dr." and you don't have a Ph.D.), you're supposed to correct it. In this case, one could properly say "Dr. Rizun" -- at least according to the Ledger Editorial Board web page.

As for the XT/BIP101/1MB/8MB/8GB topic, having read much of this thread and many other related threads, I think I'd like to smile and slowly back away.

I never had much use for D&T, but he was never quite as obnoxious as some in his class.

Stephen Gornick was top notch in my mind and extremely active and helpful back in the day.  One of the few things I've seen from him in the past few years made it clear that he was disgusted with the putsch attempt.

As for prescience, nobody can beat Hearn.  He saw with amazing clarity how to destroy Bitcoin from the time I started paying attention in 2011 and has been working hard to achieve this goal from that time.

OK, fair enough.  Your expertise is in extremely fine-grained matters of applied medical physics.  That's cool, as is your ability to take some ribbing and keep your sense of humor.

But please stop Dunning-Kruger effecting your way into the Peter Principle.  You are among the handful of people enabling Hearn's assclowning and shitlording.

The block size debate is too interdisciplinary (or rather, occurs within the wrong disciplines) for your ham-fisted inputs to be helpful beyond the educational clarifying effects of correcting your misapprehensions.

Because you are a disingenuous and very dangerous person  

There is no centralization of Bitcoin development.

Like every other open-source project it has a source code repository that everyone is free to submit pull requests to.

Each user is also free to fork the source code into their own version. Several groups have done so already. Multiple different implementations are already out in the wild. What are you doing to support them?

DeathAndTaxes was an awesome guy and I miss his presence in the online Bitcoin community.  When I was learning about Bitcoin, I would regularly read every comment he would write, hoping to suck up some of his wisdom.  Gerald is that rare gem who can understand technical topics at their full depth, who is learned in a breadth of fields beyond tech, and who is a brilliant writer and communicator.


I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why you appear to be acting hostile towards me.  

I am not an XT'er, by the way; I simply want to see both larger block sizes and multiple implementations of the protocol.  By supporting XT, I support that objective. If XT doesn't take off but we get bigger blocks and start to deprecate Core some other way, I'd be pleased with that outcome too.

What is so wrong with making it easier for the community to express their free choice by giving them more options?  If development indeed does decentralize as per the animation below, how is that a bad thing?

That begins by focusing on your apparently accomplished career and leave Bitcoin alone.

Your antics are sucking the attention of productive people whose profession and expertise consists of growing Bitcoin. Despite the picture you attempt to paint every respectable individual in this ecosystem recognize the job they have accomplished and only loud nobodies such as yourself are doubting them going forward.



I can't fucking wait to dance on you XT retards' grave. You're just another Gerald Davis.

For the record, I'm not a professor; I work in the private sector.  I co-own a small, humble high-tech company that develops intellectual property for different types of sensors.  Most of my non-bitcoin work is what you would call "spherical-cow math" to try to understand physical phenomenon in order to make better devices.   Some examples include optimally fusing the signal of a gyroscope with an accelerometer to measure human motion, understanding the propagation of vibrations through metal drill string for acoustic telemetry while oil drilling, to inferring the temperature of the process chamber at an Intel semicon fab by measuring the fluorescence of a special crystal.  

So I suggest that a better attack would be "he's not even a professor...he just models spherical cows."  You should keep the "backwater sub-arctic middle of nowhere bit," however.  It does get cold and lonely up here in my igloo.  

Anyways, enough about me.  Let's focus on making Bitcoin succeed.    

The rules and outcome of the game Peter and Mike are playing are well known:

So PR is joing Hearn's jihad against CLTV.  This development promises even moar epic lulz.

PR and MH's puppet masters have correctly ascertained that should Bitcoin's Layer 2 be effectively deployed, the subsequent scaling and consequent economic race conditions spell d-0-0-0-m for Team Fiat.

Gentlemen, ready your popcorn!   

Peter and Vitalik aside, the rest of the Ledger team is very qualified.  Professor Shadab (an old friend of mine) is particularly intelligent and well-spoken, but not at all "pompous." 

Not sure WTF your point about "MUUURICAAAAA" is.  Like Vitalik, PR (the object of our mutual well-earned scorn) is Canadian so you're really straining hard to get in that little bitchy dig at a nation of ~350 million individuals dispersed among 50 States.

Finney, Chaum, Szabo, and the Merkles are also Americans, so what?  Just hating because you are jealous?  Or are you a feckless self-loathing undergrad trendoid?



Professor Rizun hasn't published anything for years.  He's a washed-up has-been, so he's retreated back to academia.  Assuming some backwater (spherical) cow college/trade school in the sub-arctic middle of nowhere counts as academia.