Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 38. (Read 378991 times)
A straw man argument, ad hominem and a case of false equivalence. Whether I am right or wrong I would hope that most Bitcoiners would not be swayed by such primitive and obviously false arguments. I support BIP101 because I think this proposal would maximize decentralization and financial freedom over the long run more compared to the alternatives.
BIP101 will continue to live on as long as people still believe in it.
Unicorns will continue to live on as long as people still believe in them. Good argument indeed. That was also true months ago, so little has changed. And to be fair, for "major players", read "major banking industry subversives/captives".
This is more than correct. Update:
A straw man argument, ad hominem and a case of false equivalence.
Based on your argumentation with "straw men" "false dichotomies" whatever, "gold governance" exists as well. 
You were so close. Unfortunately he has become quite deluded and does not even know what a real fallacy is anymore. Old and predictable nonsense as always. 
It seems like some major players within the Bitcoin space now also support BIP101 so this is certainly far from done.
That was also true months ago, so little has changed. And to be fair, for "major players", read "major banking industry subversives/captives".
I challenge you to get real Bitcoiners to use Gavin Andresen's non-fungible alt-coin if a fork took place: why would a Bitcoin user be interested in something that's planned to become fiat 2.0?
Are we supposed to be using BitCoinXT yet? I forgot when we are supposed to change, I'm lazy and haven't moved over or read about it.. I just don't want my 1 PH/s farm to abruptly work on the wrong chain.
No. That is never going to happen. Just keep mining with what you're used to. I wonder why you didn't close this thread yet? XT is done, thus there is no need to discuss it.
Are we supposed to be using BitCoinXT yet? I forgot when we are supposed to change, I'm lazy and haven't moved over or read about it.. I just don't want my 1 PH/s farm to abruptly work on the wrong chain.
No. That is never going to happen. Just keep mining with what you're used to. I wonder why you didn't close this thread yet? XT is done, thus there is no need to discuss it.
Are we supposed to be using BitCoinXT yet? I forgot when we are supposed to change, I'm lazy and haven't moved over or read about it.. I just don't want my 1 PH/s farm to abruptly work on the wrong chain.
If you want to support BIP101 support it now, if you do not then don't. If you are only concerned with being on the biggest chain wait and see what the other miners and the economic majority will do come January. If you are mining on BIP101 however there is no danger of being on the smaller chain since BIP101 will only activate with a mining majority anyway. Furthermore I presume that with the hash power that you have you are mining with a pool? If that is the case it is the pool that decides which code is being run, unless you are mining with a pool like Slush which gives miners the choice which implementation to support.Yes, Mining with a pool I just switched from Slush to eligius.st this morning. So if there is no risk because the pool I'm on now handles things I really don't care one way or another... I'm thinking of just using Multibit HD for my hot wallet anyways, and it looks like they'll handle the change for me.
Thanks for the response.
Multibit also has my recommendation it is a reliable and well respected wallet. Impressive mining operation you have there, I hope to build my operation up to 1PH one day.
Are we supposed to be using BitCoinXT yet? I forgot when we are supposed to change, I'm lazy and haven't moved over or read about it.. I just don't want my 1 PH/s farm to abruptly work on the wrong chain.
If you want to support BIP101 support it now, if you do not then don't. If you are only concerned with being on the biggest chain wait and see what the other miners and the economic majority will do come January. If you are mining on BIP101 however there is no danger of being on the smaller chain since BIP101 will only activate with a mining majority anyway. Furthermore I presume that with the hash power that you have you are mining with a pool? If that is the case it is the pool that decides which code is being run, unless you are mining with a pool like Slush which gives miners the choice which implementation to support.Yes, Mining with a pool I just switched from Slush to eligius.st this morning. So if there is no risk because the pool I'm on now handles things I really don't care one way or another... I'm thinking of just using Multibit HD for my hot wallet anyways, and it looks like they'll handle the change for me.
Thanks for the response.
Are we supposed to be using BitCoinXT yet? I forgot when we are supposed to change, I'm lazy and haven't moved over or read about it.. I just don't want my 1 PH/s farm to abruptly work on the wrong chain.
If you want to support BIP101 support it now, if you do not then don't. If you are only concerned with being on the biggest chain wait and see what the other miners and the economic majority will do come January. If you are mining on BIP101 however there is no danger of being on the smaller chain since BIP101 will only activate with a mining majority anyway. Furthermore I presume that with the hash power that you have you are mining with a pool? If that is the case it is the pool that decides which code is being run, unless you are mining with a pool like Slush which gives miners the choice which implementation to support.
Are we supposed to be using BitCoinXT yet? I forgot when we are supposed to change, I'm lazy and haven't moved over or read about it.. I just don't want my 1 PH/s farm to abruptly work on the wrong chain.
Am I the only one feeling strong urges to puke everytime this politician muppet shows up with his endless verbiage.
Cypherpunks write code.
That is why you are so powerless and ineffective in your attempt to overthrow Core's oversight of the protocol.
All you've got going for you is braindead articles of federation while Core is busy churning out code.
If you desire to be part of you so-called "governance" process then first run a node & second get busy contributing to the open-source repo or STFU.
Cypherpunks write code.
That is why you are so powerless and ineffective in your attempt to overthrow Core's oversight of the protocol.
All you've got going for you is braindead articles of federation while Core is busy churning out code.
If you desire to be part of you so-called "governance" process then first run a node & second get busy contributing to the open-source repo or STFU.
Github or go home.
Bitcoin governance is important exactly for the reasons of ensuring that the network is not governed by anyone. If you ignore politics it will end up biting you in the ass.
Consensus is an emergent property which flows from the will of the economic majority. Proof of work is the best way to measure this consensus. The pools act as proxy for the miners, pools behave in a similar way to representatives within a representative democracy. Then in turn the miners act as a proxy for the economic majority. Since the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. In effect the economic majority rules Bitcoin, in other words the market rules Bitcoin. Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus.
Quote
Governance refers to "all processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market or network, whether over a family, tribe, formal or informal organization or territory and whether through laws, norms, power or language."
This is a good definition of governance, Bitcoin does definitely fit within this definition perfectly. After all it is a computer network with laws, that can be changed by the economic majority. Here is one of my basic descriptions of Bitcoin governance:Consensus is an emergent property which flows from the will of the economic majority. Proof of work is the best way to measure this consensus. The pools act as proxy for the miners, pools behave in a similar way to representatives within a representative democracy. Then in turn the miners act as a proxy for the economic majority. Since the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. In effect the economic majority rules Bitcoin, in other words the market rules Bitcoin. Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus.
Quote from: Vinay Gupta
It is extremely important to understand that these problems have been analyzed before. Until the Bitcoin community admits that they have political problems rather then technical problems they are trapped.
you can spout your propaganda as much as you like but at the end of the day the Bitcoin Core developers are writing node software for the 5000+ people running node software .... not for anyone else, by definition.
Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.
Denying the very existence of Bitcoin governance is not helping your case. After all there are decisions that need to be made, and there are differing opinions on what path to take. It is the question of who decides? I suppose you would argue that Core should decide for us, or that somehow they decide yet that is not a form of governance? Everything is political, whether you like it or not. As Socrates once wisely said, human beings are political animals.Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.
This thread refuses to die in the same way that BIP101 refuses to die.
Quote
Governance refers to "all processes of governing, whether undertaken by a government, market or network, whether over a family, tribe, formal or informal organization or territory and whether through laws, norms, power or language."
Bitcoin = p2p network implementing a currency
"Bitcoin governance" only makes sense to you because you are a misguided political scientist with no computer engineering skills nor basic economic skills. Go ahead and shout your intelectual "ad hominem" "straw man" "false dichotomy" bla bla. "Bitcoin governance" doesn't make sense.
Bitcoin is a currency and should not be "governed" by anyone. If it comes to this, then it has failed.
Based on your argumentation with "straw men" "false dichotomies" whatever, "gold governance" exists as well.
It would be wise for you to stop the propaganda and go do something useful. Fighting those marxists writing neverending theories would be a suggestion, since they use similar techniques as you do.
BIP101 is dead. Long live Bitcoin!
you can spout your propaganda as much as you like but at the end of the day the Bitcoin Core developers are writing node software for the 5000+ people running node software .... not for anyone else, by definition.
Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.
Denying the very existence of Bitcoin governance is not helping your case. After all there are decisions that need to be made, and there are differing opinions on what path to take. It is the question of who decides? I suppose you would argue that Core should decide for us, or that somehow they decide yet that is not a form of governance? Everything is political, whether you like it or not. As Socrates once wisely stated, human beings are political animals.Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.
This thread refuses to die in the same way that BIP101 refuses to die.
BIP101 is dead. It is only your perverted necromancy that seems determined to parade and dance with the corpse.
There is no governance except in your demented mind. Nodes run whatever software they like and that decision will be decidedly apolitical.
Take your politics back to Washington, they have no power and are not welcomed here.
Bitcoin should not and cannot be divorced from pre-existing political theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc
you can spout your propaganda as much as you like but at the end of the day the Bitcoin Core developers are writing node software for the 5000+ people running node software .... not for anyone else, by definition.
Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.
Denying the very existence of Bitcoin governance is not helping your case. After all there are decisions that need to be made, and there are differing opinions on what path to take. It is the question of who decides? I suppose you would argue that Core should decide for us, or that somehow they decide yet that is not a form of governance? Everything is political, whether you like it or not. As Socrates once wisely stated, human beings are political animals.Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.
This thread refuses to die in the same way that BIP101 refuses to die.
BIP101 is dead. It is only your perverted necromancy that seems determined to parade and dance with the corpse.
There is no governance except in your demented mind. Nodes run whatever software they like and that decision will be decidedly apolitical.
Take your politics back to Washington, they have no power and are not welcomed here.
you can spout your propaganda as much as you like but at the end of the day the Bitcoin Core developers are writing node software for the 5000+ people running node software .... not for anyone else, by definition.
Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.
Denying the very existence of Bitcoin governance is not helping your case. After all there are decisions that need to be made, and there are differing opinions on what path to take. It is the question of who decides? I suppose you would argue that Core should decide for us, or that somehow they decide yet that is not a form of governance? Everything is political, whether you like it or not. As Socrates once wisely said, human beings are political animals.Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.
This thread refuses to die in the same way that BIP101 refuses to die.
This thread never dies.
you can spout your propaganda as much as you like but at the end of the day the Bitcoin Core developers are writing node software for the 5000+ people running node software .... not for anyone else, by definition.
Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.
Anyone else who feels like they are part of the "bitcoin community" by running bitcoinJ on their phones or web wallet with Coinbase should talk to their software providers if they want to have anything changed (fee market handling and speedy confirmations are features that come to mind). "Bitcoin community governance" is a made-up myth, you are either running a node and you have node resource concerns, so will run the software most appropriate to solve those, or you are essentially an onlooker, maybe even wearing a beer-can cap, but still a bystander.
I prefer their understanding of free market economics and Bitcoin governance specifically. In contrast I am strongly opposed to the governance model that Core is presently advocating, I consider it to be totalitarian in nature.
And what is their understanding of how bitcoin should be governed?
Mike said Bitcoin core needs one person at the top a 'benovelent dictator' who should be Gavin. Thats what he intends for XT.
... but only after core dies which he said needs to happen.
Coinbase also want Gavin as benevolent dictator to head bitcoin development (not one implementation but the whole protocol), thats what they said (paraphrasing).
You like that view on governance? You consider that view less totalitarian in nature?
Thanks but no thanks.
I prefer cores open, inclusive, cautious if maybe slower approach. It has worked very well so far and Bitcoin has been improving, and growing very well under that model.
http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articlesOfFederation
Doing Garzik's 102, possibly followed by SegWit after a year of vetting and testing... you'd have taken 80% of the wind out of the XT'ers sails. There is a population out there that wants a conservative increase soon vs 800% + guessing at the next 20 years (this population may include nearly all major mining pools).
I prefer their understanding of free market economics and Bitcoin governance specifically.
"bitcoin governance" is a myth concept that has been generated by the MIT media lab as a divisive issue. The term was not in circulation until Brian Forde began pumping the "bitcoin governance" propaganda soon after taking up his role after leaving the Obama Whitehouse.
https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative/launching-a-digital-currency-initiative-238fc678aba2
http://news.mit.edu/2015/brian-forde-media-lab-director-digital-currency-0415
... go figure, government guys want to "govern". Github or go home.
Jump to: