Author

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 223. (Read 378999 times)

legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
Y'know, taking a step back from it all, these XT guys are real pushy characters. Kinda seems like they'll offer you anything really, it's just gotta be using their super-free alt-client

Where'd they train you all up, the Jehovah's Witnesses? Scientology?  Cheesy

In comparison to the Core guys being ultra paranoiac, conservative, fear mongering characters  Wink
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007
brg444 so they should resign just because they don't get support? Does that also mean that BIP102 creator Jeff Garzik should resign because he is not getting support? Are you that retard? Really?

5 pages for a retard subject...good job!

No they should resign because of sheer incompetence and for misleading Bitcoin users to get behind a potentially dangerous fork for political reasons.

Care to back up the "sheer incompetence" statement with facts? Or do you usually like to pull stuff out of your ass?

Misleading? Again pulling statements our of your ass because in my view a "misleading" move would be to say that they blocks will grow to 8MB, but instead they grow to 100MB. That is misleading! But good thing that we have the open source and that everyone can check on the code so the misleading statement is impossible!

Dangerous? Who are you to decide what's the best interest of other people?
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3083
Y'know, taking a step back from it all, these XT guys are real pushy characters. Kinda seems like they'll offer you anything really, it's just gotta be using their super-free alt-client

Where'd they train you all up, the Jehovah's Witnesses? Scientology?  Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
brg444 so they should resign just because they don't get support? Does that also mean that BIP102 creator Jeff Garzik should resign because he is not getting support? Are you that retard? Really?

5 pages for a retard subject...good job!

No they should resign because of sheer incompetence and for misleading Bitcoin users to get behind a potentially dangerous fork for political reasons.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007
brg444 so they should resign just because they don't get support? Does that also mean that BIP102 creator Jeff Garzik should resign because he is not getting support? Are you that retard? Really?

5 pages for a retard subject...good job!
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization.  
Have you ever heard about the network effect?  Roll Eyes

Are you proposing only Blockstream will host Lightning nodes and that there will not be competition for them? That would be rather shortsighted.

brg444/tvcof: give it up. you have lost. Its going to be big blocks, the only details they are deciding is how big.

You have failed your blockstream paymasters. I hope their retribution upon you is slow and merciless.... They are clever people and they do not suffer fools like you gladly.

 Grin Grin Grin


There is a distinction here. It's going to be bigger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb like the XT team was pushing for.

I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care.


No distinction. The 1mb block limit is dead, kaput, gone. They are just agreeing on what the new size will be.

Thats how consensus works. Sometimes it can get messy, but as long as the destination is not in question, nobody gives a shit about how we get there.

For your argument to make any sense you'd have to present actual proofs that the developers were ever against increasing the block size and keeping 1mb.

If you really want to turn this into a partisan thing I'd argue this is a win for team Blockstream
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization.  
Have you ever heard about the network effect?  Roll Eyes

Are you proposing only Blockstream will host Lightning nodes and that there will not be competition for them? That would be rather shortsighted.

brg444/tvcof: give it up. you have lost. Its going to be big blocks, the only details they are deciding is how big.

You have failed your blockstream paymasters. I hope their retribution upon you is slow and merciless.... They are clever people and they do not suffer fools like you gladly.

 Grin Grin Grin


There is a distinction here. It's going to be bigger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb like the XT team was pushing for.

I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care.


No distinction. The 1mb block limit is dead, kaput, gone. They are just agreeing on what the new size will be.

Thats how consensus works. Sometimes it can get messy, but as long as the destination is not in question, nobody gives a shit about how we get there.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization.  
Have you ever heard about the network effect?  Roll Eyes

Are you proposing only Blockstream will host Lightning nodes and that there will not be competition for them? That would be rather shortsighted.

brg444/tvcof: give it up. you have lost. Its going to be big blocks, the only details they are deciding is how big.

You have failed your blockstream paymasters. I hope their retribution upon you is slow and merciless.... They are clever people and they do not suffer fools like you gladly.

 Grin Grin Grin


There is a distinction here. It's going to be bigger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb the XT team was pushing for.

I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care.

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization. 
Have you ever heard about the network effect?  Roll Eyes

Are you proposing only Blockstream will host Lightning nodes and that there will not be competition for them? That would be rather shortsighted.

brg444/tvcof: give it up. you have lost. Its going to be big blocks, the only details they are deciding is how big.

You have failed your blockstream paymasters. I hope their retribution upon you is slow and merciless.... They are clever people and they do not suffer fools like you gladly.

 Grin Grin Grin
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization. 
Have you ever heard about the network effect?  Roll Eyes

Are you proposing only Blockstream will host Lightning nodes and that there will not be competition for them? That would be rather shortsighted.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
You could have at least checked what was the discussion about? We were talking about Blockstream and Jonald used "they" and commected it to "lightning payment network" which is his mistake and not mine. But still, I should have corrected him, which is my mistake.
Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong?

One developer at Blockstream has been assigned to lightning. Out of a team of nearly a dozen.

Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization. 
They can fork it. So, they would need someone with deeper understanding of the technology to make a profit out of that.
I am not saying, that they are really doing that, but that would not be something unusual.

There are people outside of Blockstream with deep understanding of the technology (those who actually created it) who are also working on it. If Blockstream can share their expertise to help develop it then who are we to complain?

Have a look at the dev mailing list: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2015-August/thread.html
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
You could have at least checked what was the discussion about? We were talking about Blockstream and Jonald used "they" and commected it to "lightning payment network" which is his mistake and not mine. But still, I should have corrected him, which is my mistake.
Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong?

One developer at Blockstream has been assigned to lightning. Out of a team of nearly a dozen.

Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization. 
They can fork it. So, they would need someone with deeper understanding of the technology to make a profit out of that.
I am not saying, that they are really doing that, but that would not be something unusual.
legendary
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1283
Gavin has shown himself not trustworthy of this key. His influence over Bitcoin anyway has long started to fade anyway. What has he done for us lately?

"Gavin's influence is fading, but we have to stop him from having influence by taking away his key".  

Way to contradict yourself yet again.  I can see you're going to be a source of much entertainment.  

It is primarily a matter of trust, not influence. These keys should not be in the hands of any random derp who has resorted to trolling fellow developers on Twitter

It is also a matter of influence.  The ability to make almost everyone stop using Bitcoin until they take some action on a scary sounding emergency could be very useful if (not when) some new hostile takeover attempt is triggered.

Slamming the ecosystem into a 'benevolent dictator' mode of management is bad enough.  When said 'benevolent dictator' has a long track record of wanting to centralize the solution to 4 or 6 copies of the blockchain worldwide and 'white/black/red-list' coins to 'help the community' overcome certain problems, it would almost certainly be curtains for the solution in Satoshi's original form.  A well timed 'alert' could be the difference between success or failure of such an attempt.

staff
Activity: 4270
Merit: 1209
I support freedom of choice
Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization. 
Have you ever heard about the network effect?  Roll Eyes
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
You could have at least checked what was the discussion about? We were talking about Blockstream and Jonald used "they" and commected it to "lightning payment network" which is his mistake and not mine. But still, I should have corrected him, which is my mistake.
Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong?

One developer at Blockstream has been assigned to lightning. Out of a team of nearly a dozen.

Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization. 

full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
OP, when the room is full of noise. Trying to speak louder only makes you the most idiot of the room.


Another thread for another round of political bullshit.

Anyone who is against freedom of choice is in bad faith.

So opposing XT is noise and supporting it is freedom of choice? Don't you see the contradiction in what you're saying?

Why opposing a choice when you have a freedoom to choose? Did you go to your neighbour and argue why they voted Obama?

Opposing is one thing, making thread to misled is another. ...ie.... Dictionship bs... I thought we're done with this

OP must be very jealous of turtlehuricane. He must beat his big brother,, iCEBREAKER first tho
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Gavin has shown himself not trustworthy of this key. His influence over Bitcoin anyway has long started to fade anyway. What has he done for us lately?

"Gavin's influence is fading, but we have to stop him from having influence by taking away his key".  

Way to contradict yourself yet again.  I can see you're going to be a source of much entertainment.  

It is primarily a matter of trust, not influence. These keys should not be in the hands of any random derp who has resorted to trolling fellow developers on Twitter
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 252

Time to zap Gavin's alert key in the next release (I assume but to not know that it is still there.)  A discussion on replacement(s) should be undertaken.



Seconded.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12250669




OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Shocked Oh, not you Jonald! Sad

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.
You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

You know lightning network is not a Blockstream creation and open source?
What? Could we please focus on a subject?
jonald_fyookball made a statement about lightning. Muhammed Zakir countered with a statement about sidechains. Regardless of if these statements are true or not, they are talking about 2 different technologies.

You could have at least checked what was the discussion about? We were talking about Blockstream and Jonald used "they" and commected it to "lightning payment network" which is his mistake and not mine. But still, I should have corrected him, which is my mistake.
Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong?

Thank you Turvarya!  There you go.

As someone else said, entirely too much noise in this thread.
I'm outta this one.

M.Z:  Thank you for expressing your sentiment earlier.
I will take your "oh no" comment to mean that (at some point) you respected
me and are now baffled.  So, THANK YOU.

I don't think I'm saying anything
radical.  You can conclude whatever you want from the
facts such as the fact the debate has gone on for years,
blockstream is working on another payment network, etc.
I'm just glad we're finally getting bigger blocks.



legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 3191
Leave no FUD unchallenged
Gavin has shown himself not trustworthy of this key. His influence over Bitcoin anyway has long started to fade anyway. What has he done for us lately?

"Gavin's influence is fading, but we have to stop him from having influence by taking away his key".  

Way to contradict yourself yet again.  I can see you're going to be a source of much entertainment.  
Jump to: