developpement and research.
http://www.xtnodes.com/
Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 64. (Read 378992 times)
VS there's literally hundreds of implementations waiting for you : http://coinmarketcap.com/
Freedom of choice!
Seriously, pick the one you like and fork off already.
Freedom of choice!
Seriously, pick the one you like and fork off already.
Maybe iCEMAN's and other altcoin shills' and trolls' Monero?
"Adaptive limits. Doesn't suffer from the 1MB block limits."
https://moneroeconomy.com/faq/why-monero-matters
Even BTCD, the most recent victim of your pathological tendency to bend the truth your way, have clearly expressed trust in Core's ability to come to a consensus on the necessary course of action.
I have also clearly expressed trust in Core's 'ability' (under the pressures of the marketplace) to come to a consensus to raise the limit. Otherwise they'll be forked off.
But that wouldn't be a problem. It's their decision. The market rules.
I am simply advocating for the freedom of choice, which many people here seem to have a problem with. you can say whatever you want it does not change the merit of my message. Freedom of choice through multiple implementations, the ability to fork is a governance mechanism inherent in Bitcoin which can be justifiably used when there are fundamental disagreements, there is no tyranny of the majority in Bitcoin. Everyone is free to choose whatever implementation they agree with the most, it does not matter what you say, this can not be changed.
From the bottom of my heart I wish everyone the best, love and peace, even towards the people that constantly insult me, I hope that you will see the light one day. I support an increased blocksize since it adheres best with the principles of decentralization and financial freedom over the long run, trust without centralized authority.
From the bottom of my heart I wish everyone the best, love and peace, even towards the people that constantly insult me, I hope that you will see the light one day. I support an increased blocksize since it adheres best with the principles of decentralization and financial freedom over the long run, trust without centralized authority.
VS there's literally hundreds of implementations waiting for you : http://coinmarketcap.com/
Freedom of choice!
Seriously, pick the one you like and fork off already.
Freedom of choice!
Seriously, pick the one you like and fork off already.
I am a person.
I don't find that statement altogether convincing.
- 3. He said "competence", not "support"
Furthermore I would also consider both XT and BTCD to be competent, Bitcoin unlimited has not been released yet but I am confident that it will also be coded well when implemented. Freedom of choice!
No no no, it's ironic, not a comprehensive fact. Taking what I said and trying to pretend I said something completely different, what a surprise (put the smileys away please, it comes across as plain psychopathic given the context).
Dishonest, strawman argument confirmed. What's your tally now?
I am a person.
I don't find that statement altogether convincing.
- 3. He said "competence", not "support"
Furthermore I would also consider both XT and BTCD to be competent, Bitcoin unlimited has not been released yet but I am confident that it will also be coded well when implemented. Freedom of choice!
What nonsense is this?
Clearly the people have expressed their will and it sits with the Core implementation.
Stop entertaining fantasy. If the economic majority truly felt misrepresented by Core they would've moved on already.
By all evidence they're waiting for Core's rigorous due diligence process.
Even BTCD, the most recent victim of your pathological tendency to bend the truth your way, have clearly expressed trust in Core's ability to come to a consensus on the necessary course of action. As it stands their implementation increases the block size as much as Core does which is to say not at all. So basically you're left shilling about an implementation that doesn't exist (Bitcoin Unlimited), another that has been widely rejected (XT) and one that does not support your position except in an abstract, distorted type of way.
I am a person.
I don't find that statement altogether convincing.
- 3. He said "competence", not "support"
Furthermore I would also consider both XT and BTCD to be competent, Bitcoin unlimited has not been released yet but I am confident that it will also be coded well when implemented. Freedom of choice!
I disagree, I think that Bitcoin is ready for the world now, we should not hold it back any further. It started with one person and it has grown, this is just continuing the evolution of this process of further distributing development.
For the millionth time it's not a matter of you agreeing or notit's the current reality that no collection of people* have so far challenged Core's group as far as technical prowess, ingenuity and deep understanding of the complex matters of distributed systems and cryptography.
I do not care if Core is the most qualified group of people technically, especially when I have a fundamental ideological disagreement with the direction that they are taking Bitcoin into. In this case ideology is more important then technical expertise. You're aware that Bitcoin is software right?
It's not some kind of magical creature that's created out of thin air.
What happens if your "implementation" forks like Bitcoin did back in 2013 largely because of Mike's incompetence and this time there's no LukeJr&co to save Bitcoin from Gavin?
First, the "iCEBREAKER Desperation" curve should be relabeled "iCEBREAKER Amusement."
And now that the XT adoption curve has inflected, you should update your old/outdated/rekt graphic by labeling the resultant new integral "TOTAL SMUGNESS." "Lolcow Production" is also an acceptably apt descriptor.
PS
Are you going to Hong Kong or staying home and pouting?
I am a person.
I don't find that statement altogether convincing.
- 3. He said "competence", not "support"
Furthermore I would also consider both XT and BTCD to be competent, Bitcoin unlimited has not been released yet but I am confident that it will also be coded well when implemented. Freedom of choice!
He actually didn't use the word "competence" in that part either, but then again, it's no surprise that the details are lost on you.
You've made a point of letting us know that you have little to no knowledge of computer science/machine logic, and yet you're simultaneously expecting people to take your software recommendations seriously? Your assessment is based entirely on a superficial: do they support blocks bigger than 1MB. The details of the implementation clearly don't matter to you, hence your recommendation of a piece of software that has zero developers and zero code. I might just pass.
And the irony is, XT is a highly competent piece of software; the 99.99% of it that was coded by competent programmers, of course. The handful of lines added by Hearn & Andressen have been widely derided by both the technical and user community, hence it's overwhelming popularity. Why would extending the same design approach, as used with XT, constitute a broadening of meaningful choice?
It's not like Frap.doc spent years exhorting us to avoid spending our BTC too early because they will someday be worth much more than gold.... 
Exactly.
I remember when we used to debate sidechains he took great pleasure in accusing me of attempting to turn Bitcoin into a "WoW marketplace" while he was apparently busy disrupting the world's forex markets....So much for that.
Frap.doc won't admit it, but so great is his cosmic butthurt over losing the Civil War that he's gone off the rails and is now deep into Buttcoiner territory. That's why he pals around with Jorge Trolli, the buttcoiner brain bug. They have more in common than he does with us. No wonder he's wasting his precious BTC on crap like discount coffee. You'd think a guy with his income level could find/afford a good local micro-roast!
Another classic worth a repost:
Satoshi invented Bitcoin not to disrupt corrupt central banking and gold markets, but so we could save 20% on Frappuccinos, dont'cha know?
I mean, who would want to hlod nasty old BTC, when they could be spending them to get Big Savings on Pumpkin Spice Lattes?
It's not like Frap.doc spent years exhorting us to avoid spending our BTC too early because they will someday be worth much more than gold....
[–]HostFat
Back to the truth.
Bitcoin.pdf
Abstract
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
Introduction
The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services.
[–]aminok
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.
Satoshi on doing small transactions on the blockchain:
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/318/
While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
This was the vision most adopters signed up for. Adoption has slowed as the attempt has been made to implement a new vision.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3tyxz7/bitpay_the_original_vision_for_bitcoin_was_the/
I disagree, I think that Bitcoin is ready for the world now, we should not hold it back any further. It started with one person and it has grown, this is just continuing the evolution of this process of further distributing development.
For the millionth time it's not a matter of you agreeing or notThis is my point that you seem to not to understand, it has everything to do with people agreeing or not.
it's the current reality that no collection of people* have so far challenged Core's group as far as technical prowess, ingenuity and deep understanding of the complex matters of distributed systems and cryptography.
I do not care if Core is the most qualified group of people technically, especially when I have a fundamental ideological disagreement with the direction that they are taking Bitcoin into. In this case ideology is more important then technical expertise. You can lie to yourself as much as you want about the feasibility of "distributing development" at this point in the game but the facts are there is simply no one that can step up to the plate with enough support, experience and abilities.
3We will soon have three alternative implementations which will support increasing the blocksize. So the facts do tell a different story, we certainly do have enough support to further distribute development.- 1. He said "you", not "people"
- 3. He said "competence", not "support"
Furthermore I would also consider both XT and BTCD to be competent, Bitcoin unlimited has not been released yet but I am confident that it will also be coded well when implemented. Freedom of choice!
You're the king of Strawman arguing, aren't you?
Incoming strawman in order to win this "argument" as well. You better watch out; just your everyday shill things. That side has no "We're/I'm wrong" option, it says so in their contract. - 1. He said "you", not "people"
- 3. He said "competence", not "support"
I disagree, I think that Bitcoin is ready for the world now, we should not hold it back any further. It started with one person and it has grown, this is just continuing the evolution of this process of further distributing development.
For the millionth time it's not a matter of you agreeing or notThis is my point that you seem to not to understand, it has everything to do with people agreeing or not.
it's the current reality that no collection of people* have so far challenged Core's group as far as technical prowess, ingenuity and deep understanding of the complex matters of distributed systems and cryptography.
I do not care if Core is the most qualified group of people technically, especially when I have a fundamental ideological disagreement with the direction that they are taking Bitcoin into. In this case ideology is more important then technical expertise. You can lie to yourself as much as you want about the feasibility of "distributing development" at this point in the game but the facts are there is simply no one that can step up to the plate with enough support, experience and abilities.
3We will soon have three alternative implementations which will support increasing the blocksize. So the facts do tell a different story, we certainly do have enough support to further distribute development.Answers 1 & 3 are addressing a different point to the one being made. You're the king of Strawman arguing, aren't you?
- 1. He said "you", not "people"
- 3. He said "competence", not "support"
You're literally wriggling around like a fish out of water, are you not embarrassed?
Satoshi invented Bitcoin not to disrupt corrupt central banking and gold markets, but so we could save 20% on Frappuccinos, dont'cha know?
I mean, who would want to hlod nasty old BTC, when they could be spending them to get Big Savings on Pumpkin Spice Lattes?
It's not like Frap.doc spent years exhorting us to avoid spending our BTC too early because they will someday be worth much more than gold....
The right wing socialist Front National should never have the chuzpah to spell the Name of Satoshi.
Remember all your wailing about ad hominem and appeals to authority? Clearly not
I disagree, I think that Bitcoin is ready for the world now, we should not hold it back any further. It started with one person and it has grown, this is just continuing the evolution of this process of further distributing development.
For the millionth time it's not a matter of you agreeing or notit's the current reality that no collection of people* have so far challenged Core's group as far as technical prowess, ingenuity and deep understanding of the complex matters of distributed systems and cryptography.
I do not care if Core is the most qualified group of people technically, especially when I have a fundamental ideological disagreement with the direction that they are taking Bitcoin into. In this case ideology is more important then technical expertise. You can lie to yourself as much as you want about the feasibility of "distributing development" at this point in the game but the facts are there is simply no one that can step up to the plate with enough support, experience and abilities.
We will soon have three alternative implementations which will support increasing the blocksize. So the facts do tell a different story, we certainly do have enough support to further distribute development. Satoshi invented Bitcoin not to disrupt corrupt central banking and gold markets, but so we could save 20% on Frappuccinos, dont'cha know?
I mean, who would want to hlod nasty old BTC, when they could be spending them to get Big Savings on Pumpkin Spice Lattes?
It's not like Frap.doc spent years exhorting us to avoid spending our BTC too early because they will someday be worth much more than gold....
The right wing socialist Front National should never have the chuzpah to spell the Name of Satoshi.
It's not like Frap.doc spent years exhorting us to avoid spending our BTC too early because they will someday be worth much more than gold....
Exactly.
I remember when we used to debate sidechains he took great pleasure in accusing me of attempting to turn Bitcoin into a "WoW marketplace" while he was apparently busy disrupting the world's forex markets....So much for that.
Jump to: