Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 65. (Read 378992 times)

Complaining? I'm amused about this banning behavior. They are so funny. They do it because they have no life experience. They must be very young.

Meh, I doubt the attempts to clawback a fairly straightforward sales commission will amount to anything.  The lawyers are just desperate to shove their blood funnels into anything that smells like money.

I miss the Frap.doc of old, and the fun we had making fun of his vision of Bitcoin as the Ultimate Retail Payment Rail.

Good to see Frap.doc is still Frap doccing:



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....   

And who got the votes? Banning couldn't help.

For the millionth time it's not a matter of you 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. Why do you think the creator of BitTorrent hangs around them and has started collaborating on development to a lesser extent rather than spinning up his own implementation?

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.*

**(Actually there is: the #bitcoin-assets folks, although I'm not so sure you'd get along with them)



I don't care for your strawman.

Your inability to perceive the utter idiocy of proposing that an open source project is somehow a totalitarian form of governance exemplifies how little you understand what you attempt to debate.  

in the end, you got couple brand new forums and some subreddits to freely express yourself.
so why you still complaining?!

Agreed. Banning and censoring is obviously a trigger to decentralization, which is happening as soon as it is necessary. Now it obviously is, otherwise it wouldn't happen.

even the cypherprick is getting an old school reckage:

Glorious: Peter R reposts his lame pie chart and gets proper fukkin' rekt by no less than Paul "It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be Above the Law” Sztorc!

Deprecating Bitcoin Core : Visualizing the Emergence of a Nash Equilibrium for Protocol Development
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3tv7v8/deprecating_bitcoin_core_visualizing_the/




 

It does.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/

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.

What are you actually disagreeing with here? My freedom of choice to choose an implementation that best aligns with my beliefs? That this freedom further extends to all people, what could you be possibly be opposed to here? Unless you are concerned that the majority will not choose your preferred choice? I think that this is something that you should accept if you accept this conception of freedom within Bitcoin, which it does seem like you are opposed to. I do not understand what else you could possibly be arguing against otherwise.

If you do believe that we should have top down control, and the economic majority should not decide on the freedom of Bitcoin and that the five or so people within Bitcoin Core should decide on the future of Bitcoin for us instead, then that is fine. I can even respectfully debate with fascist, totalitarians and communists.

However if we could just agree that everyone has the freedom of choice, then it would just be live or let live right? Who cares what protocol implementation people choose? It is their freedom of choice, unless you do not believe in the wisdom of the crowd and that people should not have this freedom of choice. It is fine if that is what you believe but it would make you fundamentally opposed to some of the founding and central tenets of Bitcoin.

Whether you can convince the majority to follow such a path is also up to you, but I do also on this forum at least have the ability to express my opposing point of view. Having such places where this can be freely discussed is critical for us as a community to reach my favored outcome at least, which does align with the older enlightenment philosophies of freedom and self determination.

various implementations = altcoins.

nothing new, its already all before your eyes to witness.
some gets a much meme community, others airdrop their coins, some ahve larger blocksize, etc...

still, gavincoin failed, bitcoinxt failed, what's next again? ah bitcoin unlimituuuurd.

Why did it make sense then and not now?

Did we somehow manage to attract dozens of ready teams of programmers willing to maintain a number of different implementations absent of financial rewards?

As far as I can see there is still only one team competent enough to not only maintain a stable and secure implementation but also innovate and port significant software improvement validated under extensive peer-view.

Are you really going to start moaning about 'teh sensor ships' again?   

A single implementation made sense for the early days, now Bitcoin needs to grow up, it needs to evolve. This is also the process of the Bitcoin community starting to realize and understand the governance and body politic of Bitcoin, a political awakening is taking place. Bitcoin cannot be divorced from pre-existing political theory.

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

When they're lying about my predictions, I like to quote myself. But maybe I'll soon get tired to entertain this ad hominem thread.
Do you know bitco.in? Another level of discussion. No warriors, no ad hominems against each other, no censorship lovers, no Front National, no Bullshit.

Might as well scrap the whole Bitcoin project then... How totalitarian of Satoshi to impose on us the source code for his project!

How dare he not consult "the community" and act in such a top down manner?

Releasing Bitcoin under a single implementation is clearly the work of a dictator!  

Here we go, only a couple of days after joining the bitco.in circlejerk he's already regurgitating Peter R's propaganda, word for word.

BS. Everybody knows what censorship is:


Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

You are welcome to release this implementation of yours, though I very much doubt that it would gain much support.

I think that you are opposed to giving people the freedom of choice. If we did only have one implementation of the Bitcoin protocol making consensus critical changes, how do you suppose that the will of the economic majority should then be reflected? Since having only one option for people to choose from in an election is the very definition of totalitarianism.

For the future of Bitcoin to be decided on by a small group of technical experts is a concept that I outright reject, this would represent top down control, as opposed to consensus being an emergent phenomena with grass roots which would be more in line with the concept of bottom up control of the protocol by the economic majority. Which aligns better with the ethos of Bitcoin, maximizing freedom and decentralization.