Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 6. (Read 378991 times)

Are you indicating that they all have the same boss and this is just a show?  

If a developer works for an enterprise, then it is very difficult for his proposal to be accepted by the community, no matter how brilliant it is. We all know that you can not work for an enterprise without listen to your boss. A developer from an enterprise only represent that enterprise's interest, and bitcoin is designed to be free from censorship, including the code level censorship from enterprises

Another reason that enterprises are not suitable to make development decisions for bitcoin is because their limited view. In today's society, it is the monetary system set the game rules and enterprises are just game players. They do not have the overview like central bankers, this makes their decision short sighted

If you are designing a global monetary system, then you better not listen to those who only knows how to make money, your view should be higher than those central bankers around the world, and it requires much higher level of understanding in money, human and society. And these are all areas with almost non existing knowledge, since only a handful of human can reach such a position that require him to master these topics

However some enterprises hold some power in deciding bitcoin main chain's direction, and the possibility of two parallel existing fork is almost 0, so the future of bitcoin is still quite uncertain

I think it worth the effort for all the participants to study some basics about money, human and society and decide a set of constitution-like rules to guide all the enterprises in bitcoin space. So far the only clear guidance is limited total supply. SW already gave an example that you can change bitcoin's architecture by using a soft fork, but should that still be called bitcoin?

What makes bitcoin bitcoin?

I'd say what almost everyone actually trusts is that various experts and people with a lot of money on the line have vetted the code.

What you said is very true, bitcoin's open source nature is its biggest advantage

However, when the protocol become 1 million + lines, I guess your trust is not so easy to establish if you try to inspect the code by yourself, you start to rely on other more involved devs

This is especially the case for most of the users without IT expertise, they just blindly download a wallet recommended by bitcoin.org and never question the validity of those clients, and they blindly upgrade to the latest version without reading the change log

Full nodes are more careful in selecting software, but still I doubt that those node operator really go to Git and read the source when they apply an upgrade. Typically they just read change log, and even if they do not fully understand a change's details, they still applies it based on the "Claimed" higher performance, stronger security, or newer feature etc... e.g. they put all their trust on core devs, believing that they will not screw it (And that's the reason we had 2013 hard fork incident)

Unfortunately currently the split in the core devs started to change all that trust. But then the question is: If you can not trust core devs, who can you trust?

One does not have to "trust" a protocol.  Actually, in the case of bitcoin, there is no protocol separate from some version of bitcoin software.  One can inspect that software and see in detail what it does and how it does it.  One can build the software from source code if one doesn't trust the downloadable binaries. If one lacks the necessary skills to understand the source code one can hire people to do review on your behalf. 

Now contrast this situation with you you face as the user of the fiat banking system, or a fractional reserve bitcoin exchange such as Mt. Gox.

Yeah, so your gonna tell me your Yahoo Google Gubmint paymasters are more... what? Professional?   

ps  His comments refer more to format and lazy blocking than at any functional aspect of the code. But you knew that, right?

Pretty standard except that it point out flaws in code already used in production 

I can only imagine how  disappointed you were when your employer told you you had to shill for a bunch of amateur charlatans 

He's rekting your destroying streamblocking core solution much more.

XT... XT... XT... footsteps approaching.  

Pretty standard code review there brg. I dont know the code intimately, but I reckon there is no more than a few hours to remedy it.

You must be getting pretty desperate if you are skulking around in that forum. Maybe that was the smell Gavin was getting?   

Synopsis:  They dont really like SW. Nobody really likes SW. Its a pie in the sky notion at the moment, when what we really need is a working solution.

You can pick at the time sequence of events all you like, but that is the gist.

The market that you gypsies so vehemently hate is starting to speak and you don't really like what you are hearing.

Edit: Maybe they should release 50% of SegWit first. They can call it Half-Wit.

Oh god how did I miss this #REKTING 

Confused and hostile.  

Yes, core is working hard on its monster 'soft'-fork into an Altcoin.

LOL.
You know very well that the notorious terrorism of the Politbüro went not just against Coinbase.

You first linked a statement supposedly from representative of BTCC that was reported by Toomim.

I pointed out to you that these statements had been made absent of clear consideration of the SW proposal. See the twitter link I posted?

Now you reply with a completely different post from Toomim that is completely irrelevant so really I'm not sure why you think I'm the one who's confused.

The author is Jonathan Toomim. Why are you confused?

Huh?

The author in question was reporting hearsays from discussion w/ some people from BTCC and is not representing BTCC himself.

Well said.  The Blockstream Core Central Planning Committee has lost control.  People are waking up to the fact that they've always been free to implement crafted Bitcoin clients to meet their needs.  I too applaud the effort of enabling a reference client but that doesn't mean that the Core Power Rangers can run roughshod over the community.

Same author, 6 hours ago:

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yqe7c/segregated_witness_still_sounds_complicated_why/

Try 3 weeks ago

https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/674834690377842691

And consider this from the post you linked: