Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 212. (Read 378997 times)

i think i might need to take a break from this insanity.

cheers.


ps: i just cant wrap my head upon some people here, i do suspect them as being professional trolls, drowning any bit of sense in their unstoppable flow of fallacies. so dont waste too much of that energy trying to argue with them.

Upon a Crunchbase investigation of the companies attached to the open letter (text) published on Blockchain.info's blog supporting BIP-101, a correlation arose that indicates these companies have most likely been compromised for some time. All of these companies who have been known to employ heavy KYC terms, are heavily funded by fiat institutions that want to pervert Bitcoin.

Concern was raised of the BIP-101 syndicate when many of their VCs overlapped. Each venture has at least one VC in common based on CrunchBase data. Xapo itBit and Bitnet all have funding from Blockchain Capital, of which one of the managing partners is Brock Pierce. Qntra earlier reported Pierce, replaced Vessennes' as chairman of the now defunct Bitcoin Fundation back in April, under peculiar circumstances. Pierce may be a puppet for the Fundation puppeteers, but it's likely no coincidence that Jon Matonis stepped down as the Executive Director in October of 2014 and became heavily vocal of the consequences of a block size hard fork, while Pierce is elected Chairman.

Lightspeed Venture Partners who funded Ripple is also a major shareholder of Blockchain.info. Ripple is a centralized bastardization of Bitcoin, making it suspect that it was Blockchain's blog that published the open letter.

Circle, a competitor to Coinbase, has the most damning VC behind the reigns: Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sach's a purely fiat institution is a majority shareholder of Moneygram a cash based money transfer service with astronomical fees. If Goldman Sachs is at all turning the Circle knobs, their motivation for BIP-101, is to force users who are unable to run a full node due to the resource burdens, to use services such as Circle. It would also serve as an initial footing for fiat institutions' invasion into the protocol level of Bitcoin.

By endorsing BIP-101 this syndicate of puppets has shed light on the puppeteers attempting to pervert Bitcoin into a USG acceptable currency, where the state can ultimately control a neutered imitator of actual Bitcoin.

Something went wrong with your edit and the gif got lost.  I fixed it for you.

I also should have said something about the exponential growth that Gavin seemingly almost alone among the more technically inclined tried to push forward.  That is probably why he got 'the finger' from pretty much everyone except Hearn who's corp/gov 'full spectrum domination' plans for Bitcoin are only tenable with such a construct.

No substance post have no substance.

Above are the original statements you claim I never made.

"Your original argument bore no relevance to the text it addressed." It most certainly does, burden of proof is on your end for this claim.

"As you say, you invented the connection between them after I requested it." I did not invent the connection afterwards, I have already developed these thoughts in my own research.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

I respectfully disagree with the good people at Bitfury. I am surprised to see that they think that it is intrinsically wrong to fork away from the Core developer team. There are very good reasons for why this is not the case, which we have already discussed on this thread. This white paper does not prove anything in terms of this question. Furthermore them just saying this, I do not find convincing, an argument for why this is the case would be better. Or if you really believe this brg444 then why don’t you rebuttal my arguments instead of just posting the opinion of Bitfury. If Core does not implement a block size increase within a reasonable amount of time, I am sure that Bitfury would change their tune on this issue eventually anyway.

The small blockers will be the losers:

Gmax: "We can't increase the block size limit because they'll be too many orphans."

Keep that bs over there. The concern trolling about Bitcoin development is nothing but XT fans looking for another fight to lose.

“Now I am going to accuse you of strawmanning, and it's bizarre: you are strawmanning your own statements as opposed to mine. What you present in the above post is not what you tried to assert originally.” All I tried to assert originally is this:

things that VeritasSapere did not say originally

You are correct in saying that “What you present in the above post is not what you tried to assert originally.”.

This is true but this is only because you asked me to make the argument when you said “I'd like to see you follow your advice to others and flesh this out beyond simply asserting it.”. That is why the argument came later because you asked me to flesh it out so to speak. I do not think it is possible to straw man myself in terms of it being a logical fallacy at least.

This is funny, we are not even talking about the blocksize anymore, this has become pure epistemology, which is good.

Yes.

"To me, it's only a matter of whether we get a big rise soon-ish because Core implements bigger blocks, or a gigantic rise later-ish because Bitcoin dev becomes decentralized away from Core."

Zangelbert Bingledack, Yesterday at 2:06 AM

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-is-awesome.17/#post-177
 

“Now I am going to accuse you of strawmanning, and it's bizarre: you are strawmanning your own statements as opposed to mine. What you present in the above post is not what you tried to assert originally.” All I tried to assert originally is this:

That this white paper does not prove anything in terms of the question of whether it is intrinsically wrong to fork away from the Core developer team.

And that if Core does take to long to implement a block size increase within a reasonable amount of time, that Bitfury would most likely change their tune on this issue eventually anyway.

In some cases a single argument can be used as an argument for other concepts as well. I can flesh this out quite simply as well:

“Split between client software installed on full nodes could cause a negative impact on Bitcoin's image and decrease trust In the Bitcoin blockchain”
“Transition to Bitcoin XT could cause a fork of the blockchain: there is a concern that small differences between Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Core could result in Bitcoin XT accepting some transactions that are considered invalid in Bitcoin Core”

Now since it is true that such criticisms would be true for any alternative client implementation, I can argue that:

The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized and free. That is why it is not intrinsically wrong to fork away from the core development team.

Therefore it can be argued that the positives of having alternative clients can outweigh the negative consequences of adopting an alternative client because of these reasons.

You did accuse me of using a straw man argument and you where actually partially correct.

Really? An argument against one concept can usefully serve as an argument against a second unrelated concept? I'd like to see you follow your advice to others and flesh this out beyond simply asserting it.


Do you see the gargantuan irony in saying I accused of you of strawmanning, when I actually asked you if you had made repeated mistakes?

Their arguments are focused on the disadvantages of choosing an alternative client for the implementation of increasing the block size. It is true that they did not say it was intrinsically wrong, you are correct in saying that. However my arguments for why it is not intrinsically wrong can serve as counter arguments to such reasoning.

Also I never said that Bitfury does not want to increase the block size, they clearly do. This is pretty funny actually we are indeed falling into the same pattern of you accusing me of a straw man argument when that is not the case. Though granted they did not say it was intrinsically wrong and you are correct in saying that there is an important distinction there. However the argument for why it is not intrinsically wrong does serve as a counter argument to their position.

Not what they said. They said it damages confidence, not that it's intrinsically wrong. Those two things are separate concepts, you would do well not to confuse them.

Careful, second time you have misrepresented someone's views that I have noticed, and it's on the same thread (and the same page).


From the BitFury report which you claim to have read:


So, three times in one page, Veritas? Are these all mistakes on your part?