Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 23. (Read 378980 times)

Well, shouldn't OP know this?

@brg444

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

I think that this topic is officially over.

Now may be a good time to close this thread, but what a fun ride it has been!

I wish he would [censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo as suggested by Rizun.]  It would take about 3 minutes for a replacement (or 15) to pop up. 

It would be funny if the repo utilized by the actual Bitcoin contributors of this time to grant Hearndresen commit privs just for shits-n-giggles.  Also funny, of course, to see the main body of work committed to Hearndresen's repo be merges from the new one.

+1 Especially since no one cares.

Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it.

Anyway, it will be meaningless action.

Please stop spamming the thread with the same posts repeatedly.

Oh and..fork off!

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

There either are the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg group, Council on Foreign Relations, United Nations, Club of Rome, etc, etc, or there are not.  The evidence I've seen indicates that such groups do exist, and none of them seem to be completely 'open'.

These groups have either formed and held periodic meetings with no effect whatsoever but the participants don't tire of trying, or they persist in part because they do achieve effects.  I think there is evidence, both direct and tangential, that some of the activities of these groups do achieve some effects.

There may be individuals and entities who participate in and fund these groups multiple of such groups simultaneously or there are not.  I believe that there is evidence that there are.

My belief is that to imagine a single small group or individual at the top of the pyramid controlling everything with precision strains credulity.  My guess is that there is considerable global influence from policies and plans arrived at in meetings of these various groups.  I also believe that there is more than a little tension within these groups with individual participants having somewhat different goals and priorities and ideas about how to obtain a result.  Human nature being what it is (especially among the more successful and powerful individuals of the world) there is probably more than a little jockeying for position.  I suspect that some of the plans which were formulated out of some of these groups have fallen flat while other operations have exceeded their wildest expectations.  These are just things which make intuative sense to me and what I believe I observe from the outside.

---
On a slightly related note, do yourself a favor and listen to one of the presentations about 'technocracy' by Patrick Woods if you've not already.  Here's a link:  

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNkDiBOO4H0

As someone who muses about a variety of aspects of our world and someone who has spent a fraction of my life in the high-tech world and in some organizations who have been at the fore, this guy's thesis has huge explanatory power.  My current 'strongest hypothesis' is that some of the most powerful people on the planet have seen 'technocracy' as a hugely useful tool to use in the future.  Many many other people who would/will be the 'technocrats' see it both as a paycheck and in a lot of cases as a utopia which could benefit mankind.  For my part I am quite certain that the latter could not be farther from what we'd eventually see.

As Woods mentions, we are looking at a completely new and novel economic system with Technocracy more than anything.  Suddenly 'smart meters' (which I first ran across deep in the bowels of tech-land) make a great deal of sense.  Similarly 'the internet of things.'  Similarly, when executive secretary of the UNFCCC Christiana_Figueres says "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," it makes a great deal of sense.

If this guy Woods is on to something even partially, those who have a meaningful stake in Bitcoin (or metals, property, etc) would do well to avail themselves of some of his ideas.  What conclusions to draw are not clear.

He seems very aggressive in his efforts to disrupt, smear and gather personal information on important contributors. Who knows what his true motivations are.

I would put money on the fact that Peter R is probably being paid by someone who wants to kill Bitcoin's decentralization.

They actually think they can hijack the Repo  

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-188#post-6819

Is Peter talking about the Bitcoin core repo? or about XT repo or some other repo?

I cant believe he is suggesting to try and shut down Bitcoin core repo, if that is the case ... These people  

Does Gavin have this power??
[/quote]

pretty certain that's a no

Does Gavin have this power??

The lolcows are unusually agitated since Core's most recent show of strength.

Behold here Peter R Rizun, Managing Editor of the Ledger academic publication, openly lobbying Gavin to.... you guessed it..... censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo.

People used to describe bitcoin as digital gold, but it seems no one complains that gold can only do 0 transactions per second, and maybe average gold holder do one transaction every 10 years or more, it still worth over $1000 per ounce

I believe people don't need so much transaction capacity, there are just so many ways to do transactions. However, they need a trustworthy monetary system that do not print money out of thin air, and there is none except bitcoin

See this post: Why even use BitCoins?
It seems new users always wondered why should they use bitcoin to do transaction, so the transaction demand will always be the least to worry

Anyhow its ironic and funny, when browsing the XT sub-reddit to see a regular appearance of people complaining about the difficulty of running their node.

Running XT is equivalent to saying 'Lets vote to take away our vote'. The voting being done by running nodes, with XT supporters not having a problem if in the future only larger entities can run nodes in datacenters. (and yes nodes do vote because ultimately its them who have the power and miners have no choice but to mine blocks that economic consensus considers valid).

XT is actually an example of the need for easy to run nodes. Like Peter Todd said, I don't agree with XTs specific goals but the ability to do what they are trying to do needs to be there.
 

On the front page right now (and there have been many other instances of similar threads in past):

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3xke53/default_settings_should_not_crash_bitcoinxtd_on_a/

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3xmmko/throttling_my_xt_nodes_cpu_usage/


Not from xt subreddit but still:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3xp22r/fully_synced_bitcoin_core_is_using_50_cpu_is/


In the meantime core developers are constantly giving real improvements to scalability, as opposed to simplistic 'speed limit increase' masquerading as scalability solution of XT.

ohh dont bring blocksize into it. We are talking about extreme one-off even that will make Bitcoin much less usable for a few weeks anyhow. Its hardly an argument to have very big blocks.

"Gavincoin" #rekt

CIA needs new puppet. This one is used up.

With the reduced hashrate, blocks would take longer and it would take about 3 weeks before the difficulty could be adjusted. During this period, the average time to the next block would be longer, so if there were no backlog the average time to confirm would be increased by 40%.  Neither of these would be catastrophic.

However, the capacity of the network to carry transactions would also be reduced by 70%, based on the block limit.  If the load on the network had been humming along at 60% of capacity (like at present) then the network would be dumped into gross overload and many transactions would not get confirmed at all for weeks.  Note that this catastrophic failure would not occur without the block limit limiting capacity.  It would be perfectly reasonable to say that this catastrophic failure was caused by the block limit.