Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 66. (Read 378992 times)

Doesn't matter if it's 3 or 300, it doesn't change the fact that most of them are (will be) risky at best. Increasing the size to random amounts is never the right answer, neither is removing the limit. On the other hand, I was thinking of also offering my own implementation of the protocol to the public. I have evidence of my extensive research that supports 500 GB blocks at the moment. Trust me, I might even publish a paper about it.

I agree, not everything Zarathustra said was wrong. But you're clearly new to this.


When you're dealing with dishonest debaters, like Zarathustra and company, their strategy for "winning" is to present 95% cogent arguments, carefully chosen to be associated with the 5% falsehoods that are the intended view to be propagated.

So, any apparent honesty from dishonest people is only a part of the conceit. I hope you've found some value in this introduction to the techniques of these sophists.

I suppose some of you have not realized this yet but it is not about XT anymore. It is about the freedom of choice and whether the economic majority chooses to have an increased blocksize or not. BTCD for example is another alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol which will also soon support an increased blocksize.

Soon we will have three alternative implementations of the Bitcoin protocol which will support increasing the blocksize, further enabling people to have the freedom of choice.

The marketplace of ideas has spoken loudly and clearly:

Bitcoin interprets XT and Gavinista governance coups as damage and routes around them.

Zarathustra is not entirely wrong C.Banks he's right when he says the size issue will need to be revisited/addressed.

THAT SAID, this doesn't mean that XT was the way to do it which is what most ppl are trying to say to Zarathustra.

While I agree with you wholeheartedly, I've not once acted on the urge to say it out loud. We've got a surfeit of "holier than thou" up in here already  

I will say it again because it seems like some people still do not understand. Even though theymos had the right to exercise censorship on his own forum it still does make it right or justified, it was the wrong thing to do even though he had the right to do it. In the same sense that freedom of speech gives us the right to say anything, however to say anything is not always justified or the right thing to do, I could put out hate speech for example, I would have the right to do this under free speech but again it is the wrong thing to do and certainly not justified. This distinction has nuance and subtlety to it. Supporting censorship is at least consistent with totalitarianism and being opposed to the freedom of choice.

Guys can you quit the EGO wars already?


@Zarathustra
Man don't you get tired of quoting yourself?  

You're the only person who maintains that the Core devs will be forced to change the blocksize next year,


You're the only person who constantly tacks "...so says the totalitarian" onto anything that anyone says that you disagree with.


Are you sure that it's totalitarianism that you dislike? Because you seem to be quite keen on forcing your solitary view on everyone else. Massive hypocrite, no?

Isn't it worse than hypocrisy when it is only the accuser that is guilty of their own accusation, and not even the accused?

"broadcasting of a transaction to" is an important distinction

there is certainly a threat, a threat is not certainty.

Perhaps bitcoin does not need to scale quite so big if people use alt coins for low value transactions.

a misleading grammatical construct, nevertheless... https://blockstream.com/2015/09/01/lightning-network/


All the answers to your questions are already there.

This tells me nothing and is worthless evidence to almost everyone in the world. It's not my conspiracy theory. The right people have been discussing this occasionally since "you" released it. Every time you do something ignorant, like call out to censorship because the forum doesn't agree with your nonsense, you start looking more like a clown. The owner of a forum has every right to delete, punish and whatnot anyone who comes to their forum for no apparent reason. This is not censorship, this is him/her not wanting to listen to your bullshit. The right to free speech has nothing to do with a forum.

---

---

Obviously the lack of trust is deserved. A possible analogy: a warrior should drop his shield (spam filter, e.g. block size) for X reason and go into a fight hoping that everything will be alright. I wonder what would happen the next time we have a spam attack, 100 times stronger than we've had so far, if we followed your proposal. Should we risk everything in order to find out, hoping that everything will be right?

---

---

Update:
XT propaganda folk doesn't know the definition of  freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship." This is obviously the case here since theymos is the government.  

Blablubb. What do you mean? I always said that core will be forced to raise the limit next year. To prolong the stalemate by talking about different 'proposals' will not work anymore into the halving period. Furthermore they will be forced to raise that limit as much that it will not block the stream. The community (market) will not tolerate a cap that is small enough to enforce the stream artificially into sidechains. As soon as that happens another fork will be enforced by the market.

It's slightly amazing how vindictive you're being, all while failing to admit how badly your argument has failed?


"Look at how successful we've been, the opposite of everything we've said so far has been demonstrated to be true!"



You're clearly unhinged in some way or another, and you're expecting to attract people to your argument, how, exactly?

Luke, gmax and other miniblockists will have to compromize up at least to Adams numbers. And then:

Once that goes off without a hitch, many of the small block adherents' objections will be gone, and we can fork again as needed to raise it more.

And now you're presenting Adam Back's proposition as a victory for "big blockists"? 


You're out of your mind.

How many times do you have to be told that the limit will be raised next year?? Do you understand? Not tonight dear! Next year! 2016!

Opinions of the outcome of the block-size issue? von nyeko_92 in btc

[–]ForkiusMaximus 12 Punkte vor 19 Stunden

Either Core will implement a modest increase, like 2-4-8 (or Flexblocks), or they will be forked off.

Once that goes off without a hitch, many of the small block adherents' objections will be gone, and we can fork again as needed to raise it more.

XT

Thank you, I appreciate that you value my writing. Bitcoin is very important to me as I am sure it is to most of us here. I am advocating for the freedom of choice, it surprising sometimes how much opposition there is to this simple concept in action. I am confident that in the long run the principles of the true and original Bitcoin will triumph, incentives will align and we will see bigger blocks implemented in Bitcoin with or without Core.

heh, and now they giggle about their bitcoin unlimiturd... if only they had actual devs to code and fork off already, y' know let the market decide and stuff..
but clearly they are incapable annoying little kids. medical physics, political philosophy... and shit.

also, not that bitcoin have any serious competition in the first place, it is so not 'competing' for bigger blocks.

Yeah he told so, like if Bitcoin XT was actually a real thing and not just an altcoin masked as bitcoin at the end and didn't forked because chaos is needed for XT devs otherwise the whole thing could already die in the first weeks