Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 183. (Read 378996 times)

Well the onus of proof on how Bitcoin will achieve this is on you. If your argument is that Bitcoin will achieve this by having every poor African adopt it before the economic majority does then your understanding of "capitalist theory" is broken.

You are implying that multiple implementations will somehow make the protocol more robust, I say otherwise. What makes protocol more robust is extensive peer-review, not some buzz like development decentralization.

Exactly. Some, not all.

I'm not advocating, I'm explaining to you how Bitcoin network consensus works. And Bitcoin is voluntary.

That's not what I think. I have alrealy explained to you that Bitcoin development is decentralized by nature. Anyone can create different implementations, and the economic majority is free to choose. And it chooses Core, that's reality. If Core fails, then a different implementation can win. But that's not the case now.

Would you miss us with your mischaracterization of reality?

Bitcoin XT does not propose an alternative implementation it proposes a different protocol.  

Wealth disparity is indeed an inevitable outcome of any economy. However decreasing global and local inequality is a positive thing and not inconsistant with good capitalist theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#/media/File:Global_Distribution_of_Wealth_v3.jpg

Having another option for the voluntary choice of running an alternative implementation of Bitcoin is not a dictatorship by any stretch of the meaning of that word. Voluntarism is 100% consistent with the idea of Bitcoin.

How about you don't bother me with your economic ignorance?

Wealth disparity is an inevitable outcome in any economy. Bitcoin is capitalism in its purest form. Stop trying to stick socialist shit to it, it won't stick.

Have you had a look recently at the wealth distribution in Bitcoin? It is arguably worse than in the fiat economy. The suggestion that Bitcoin brings about wealth redistribution is laughable really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

Bitcoin does bring about wealth redistribution whether you like it or not. How about instead of telling me that my opinion is one of pure delusion and ignorance you give me a counter argument instead. That would be more convincing.

Yes, I know you'd love for Bitcoin to be a tool of wealth redistribution, but that is not how it works and it was never meant to be so. Stop conflating your delusions with reality.

If Bitcoin is adopted by the world's economic majority then by definition it has become the standard for money. This necessarily translates into its adoption by the remaining 80% which, as any herd does, will follow. As such, having our financial system operate on the sound economic theory of Bitcoin will benefit EVERYONE, even if the 80% retain little control over it.

I'm sorry but you have terrible understanding of economics and how this world operates. You might think your opinion holds value but seeing as most of it is pure delusion and ignorance you don't get to pull the "agree to disagree" argument. How you'd like the world to work is not representative of how it actually does work.

It's not just socialist "diversion". In fact it is socialist authoritarianism. Enforcing contracts upon others without their consent is good old-style dictatorship.

This is exactly the kind of mind set Gavin and Hearn embrace for their hostile fork-attempt as well. It is 100% contradictory to the idea of Bitcoin.

I'm sure that with the help of its competent developers, Bitcoin will ultimately scale in a smarter way than FUD-pushed extremist BIP101.

ya.ya.yo!

Your logic is wrong.

Read my post above.

Bitcoin is not a social network. As strange as it may sound its value does not come from more users.

I disagree, since it depends on how you define success. If you are measuring success based on price then you are correct in this scenario. However if we measure success in how it effects peoples lives and how many life’s it has saved and positively changed by using the Bitcoin blockchain then having the poorer 80% adopt it first would be better. If the poorer 80% adopts it before the richer 20% then this would also bring about a redistribution of wealth, which would bring about the positive effect of decreasing global inequality.

If this poorer 80% of the population adopts Bitcoin first then I am sure that the other 20% will also follow eventually.

I got it from being logic honestly , if Bitcoin was used by couple of people how in the world it will gain any value and become successful ? , it won't . we need more demand and  with the "less supply of block halving price is supposed to go UP and that's it , there is other factors but I think the value is the most important thing on this situation and without a value it will simply die .

there is demand, and lots of it. Fidelity Investments‎ is one of many.

"second layer solutions" are a nice idea but have yet to implement let alone proven, its going to take years to have a proper second layer and years more for it to prove itself.

"GavinCoin" failed because of many things, the least of which are bigger blocks.

the simple fact remains if bitcoin doesn't scale ( with big block or second layer ) soon ( within a year or 2 i guess) there will be a huge demand for an alternative solution, and we could very well see an altcoin capture a significant % of bitcoin's  market cap.

i always said that altcoins will never have any change at taking over bitcoin, because bitcoin's code isn't static it's protocol  has the ability to " learn and adapted", but if this proves false, then altcoins suddenly looks more promising, and then economic incentives ( altcoin4KTPS is in a bull market, while bitcoin is losing market share ) i could see a complete switch taking about 3 months.

luckily most of the devs do not share the extremist view that block size should always remain at 1MB, I read some of the top devs commentary, and it seems clear that they are simply delaying the increase to implement some optimizations which allow for bigger blocks being less of a burden on full nodes. I am confident bitcoin development will continue to outpace/outperform altcoins dev.

we will have optimized code, we will have bigger blocks, we will scale this thing sky high. all in good time.

also, sidechains are not a scaling strategy they are likely to increase TX on the main chain considerably actuly. ( another reason to scale the main chain...)   lighting network will also be instrumental in scaling bitcoin, trying to scale bitcoin skyhigh requires all possible  solutions.

Bitcoin is a money protocol. The internet of VALUE. It is not Facebook and therefore the number of users is not representative of its adoption.

Increased adoption by capital is what we should be concerned about. It is not correlated with the number of users.

In that regard I shall remind you of iCEBREAKER's mention of Pareto's law of distribution. In the context of Bitcoin it means that if 20% of the world's population controlling 80% of the wealth is to adopt Bitcoin then it would bring about more success & change than if the other 80% adopted it. (The actual wealth disparity is by all account much worse)

Increased adoption would help Bitcoins survival into the future, the history of file sharing can be considered as a precedent for this. I would also like to see more people benefit from the Bitcoin blockchain directly, because I think this would do much good in the world.

While there are some issues with the software itself like with every software, Bitcoin is fine with where it is now. There is nothing wrong with Bitcoin now. For the record, I'm not saying that I want a closed system for elitist or anything. Bitcoin does not have to be mainstream. In other words, if I were to chose between mainstream and decentralization I'd chose the second option. The only real reason for anyone to be pushing hard for solution designed for mainstream adoption right now, even though it damages decentralization, is profit.

Bitcoin Core is going to address scaleability (e.g. Lightning Network which is usually ignored by XT supporters; I wonder why) as necessary and will enable more people to use Bitcoin. This might not happen this year, or the next, but I still do not see the reason for which we should choose the risky path?

It is already successful.

There is no such thing as a social contract. This is a typical socialist diversion. It won't work.

A protocol fork of Bitcoin, unless it obtains support from the economic majority, is absolutely and without doubt an altcoin.

Your mistake is assuming the economic majority is supporting reckless increase of the blocksize.

It's increasingly obvious this isn't the case so your opinion of what "people want" is irrelevant to the reality.

Bitcoin has multiple implementations. There also exists multiple implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, they are called altcoin. Bitcoin is absolutely voluntary and there is no such thing as "tyrany of development". If you are not satisfied with existing protocol you are welcome to either submit your own pull request, develop your own altcoin or adopt an existing one that fits your need.


In the case of a split the two groups will each reach consensus. It's likely one group will retain the economic majority, their fork will be considered Bitcoin, the others will fork into their own altcoin.


It absolutely is. If you don't agree with the Nakamoto consensus protocol you are free to abstain yourself from using it and creating your own version.


Bitcoin is an engineering project. Core has attracted the best mindshare in this industry and until another development team come forward with proper credentials there is no reason we should diverge from Core's leadership.

To quote adamstgBit because I could not have said it better myself:
Even though it is factually incorrect that a protocol fork of Bitcoin is an altcoin. If you where to use such faulty logic then it would actually be the other way around. Since not increasing the blocksize could essentially be considered as equivalent to breaking the social contract of Bitcoin.