Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 189. (Read 378996 times)

Point is refuted? Again, where is the continuous 3 years debate?

If we're being honest the debate was actually engaged in May and lasted no more than 2 months before Mike & Gavin went rogue. If you pretend otherwise you're just a shameless liar.. what can I say 

You're just like icebreaker.  When one point is refuted, you just go onto another one.

Yawn....

 

Do you always rely on others opinion and cannot verify facts for yourself?

Great! So you found a forum post spanning exactly 10 days in 2013. And then? Where is the continuous 3 years debate you speak of?

This analogy is wrong. This is not a democracy.

Are you bothered by Satoshi remaining anonymous?

It is democracy. Some centralist/authoritarian devs and teir followers think it is centralism/authoritarianism/fascism, but it isn't.

Great! So you found a forum post spanning exactly 10 days in 2013. And then? Where is the continuous 3 years debate you speak of?

It is democracy. Some centralist/authoritarian devs and teir followers think it is centralism/authoritarianism/fascism, but it isn't.

Well this article seems to say otherwise.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/

Because it actually never did.

Until Matt Corrallo brought up the subject on the dev mailing list in May there was barely any debate about this other than maybe some odd discussions.

The "debate" lasted no more than two months until Gavin & Mike took their ball and went home crying because there was absolutely no support for their position.

And yes! Gavin actually did create BIP101 (or its early form) right out of the blue. To quote Greg Maxwell (Thu May 7 00:37:54 UTC 2015)

Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they were reading too much into it.

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

ROFLMAO

I concur. What was proposed was more than risky in this case. 75% is nowhere near enough, and trying to take over power does not make it better. This is one of the main reasons for which I have showed my dissatisfaction with XT and both Hearn and Gavin.

Oh the irony that you're failing to see here.

---

---

This analogy is wrong. This is not a democracy.

At this stage of BTC infancy, where this tech is still young, trying to force this kind of division has endangered the entire BTC project.

Do you also dislike having several political candidates to vote on?

Having a choice is always good and we need more of that. This is how open source works.

There's no need to have Bitcoin controlled by a single developer group, in fact it's dangerous and we should always be able to fork / move to another client if necessary. (more options the better)

You have no need to worry. The BIP 101 fork will only happen if a good majority of the Bitcoin economy thinks it's better. If it's worse, then it won't get adopted.

It's not good to have such a fit (shouting with all caps) over a freedom to choose.

This analogy is wrong. This is not a democracy.

Sure, altho he is the one that keeps on shilling his pseudoscience over the bitcoin's dev mailing list, wasting people's time that are fully public.
They got nothing to hide.. Does peter?
Hell even dat troll stolfi has came out at some point to somehow try at back his stuff up!

You dont throw your 'enlightening' opinion or whatever WPs, pretending it to somehow be valid without backing your 'research' by a full curriculum vitae.
And even more regarding the academics.

SO PETER, WHO ARE YOU?

lol wtf, so smart, completely redirecting the subject, im not doxxing anyone.
why the sudden interest in defending the anon peter? dont you think he is old enough to simply answer? or are you one of peter's proxy account too?
junior member, suddenly caring enough to post in here, talking bets n stuff.

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

Still fighting your proxy war, dear iCEMAN?

XT has already won

Do you also dislike having several political candidates to vote on?

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

Slush brought up spoofed nodes.  Slush's FakeXT node spoofs BIP101 support when it mines blocks.

XT is dead, and it's never coming back.  Does that make you sad and angry?  Good.   

When a guy has been around as long as I (and is somewhat analytical by nature), one can spot certain things.  Attacks by competent attackers are normally set up well ahead of time, and it's possible to see them coming.

One example which is classic is that big who-ha about 'block will fill and we are all going to die so we have to do something by {magic date}.  The artifacts of this one continue to linger which is why we still see people who should know better and who were not taken for a ride by the XT/BIP101 attack continue to feel a subconscious need to 'do something'.  Even if it makes no sense (e.g., a paltry 1x block size increase which will do absolutely zilch over what we have at 1MB.)  The manipulation of the herd through psychological means is a high art and science and is extremely well developed by 2015.

Another one is the idea of the 'longest valid chain.'  The 'valid' part is very deliberately stripped out (though a lot of people who have no clue will parrot the words of those who do.)  I'll tell you what is going on here:  Even today it will be quite trivial to form a 'longest chain' which is of whatever structure TPTB desire.  It's not a matter of generating certain blocks but rather of keeping blocks from being generated.  This is trivial to do with injunction since blocks are generated at the pleasure of corporate service providers (especially network providers) and TPTB 'own the net.'  Most of the real world who actually uses Bitcoin (e.g., Coinbase, TigerDirect, etc) are under the same sets of pressures.

The end-play of this 'longest chain' attack will be a bunch of people (such as Peter R) saying 'of course we don't like with the attack on the chain and it is terrible and all, but it's the longest chain(tm) so what can ya do?'