Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 75. (Read 378992 times)

Yes it is.  That's why I stole it!   

Subverting Bitcoin's revolutionary potential into yet another consumer payment rail is *EXACTLY* what the BIS shitlords should do, if they seek to preserve their exorbitant money printing privileges.  And [email protected] is only too happy to help.

If you wish to use the phrase in your sig or Personal Text (words under avatar pic) that would be great!

Why you guys still entertaining VS ?  


  Who ever said exponential = infinite  

In other news I guess I got banned from /r/Bitcoin for going too hard at banking shills & Mike Hearn  

It is indeed.  I personally care not one iota about replacing ATM's.  The debt-based monetary system which currently animates the entire economic state of my country is what I care about.  More specifically, the inherent life expectancy of such systems and their typical failure modes, and what it may mean to me.  Even more specifically, what evolves out of such an implosion.

It is worth note that almost without exception the efforts that Hearn and Andresen have focused on are to facilitate to enlistment of people who's interest does not go beyond the ATM/VISA/PayPal aspect of the Bitcoin monetary system.  I attribute this to a strategy which recognizes that these participants are a distinct liability to the defensibility of the ecosystem.  The demands that 'the masses' make will open many chinks in the armor.  Actually 'chinks' is an understatement.  The effect would be that of a sufficiently large torpedo detonated under the keel mid-ship.

I do believe that this 'enlist the masses' focus has been strategic, and is for the ultimate purpose of destroying the Bitcoin solution in it's initial form.  At least in Hearn's case.  Gavin may at one point have been legitimately convinced that ballooning the userbase was a viable defense however naive that may be, and also that bending over backward to placate the existing political power structures so that they will be nice to us made sense.  I don't believe that that is a sustainable argument any more if it ever was, and Gavin must certainly know this.

Changing the subject I see, BIP101 is also not exponential, it does have an ending point, and its starting point will not be at the limit of our technology. I do recognize that there are negative externalities to increasing the blocksize. However I think that this should be a balancing act with all of the other variables considered. One megabyte forever certainly would cause more harm to Bitcoin in terms of adoption, decentralization and financial freedom over the long run.

Well, when you strip away your (economic?) minority argument that exponential blocksize increases don't threaten decentralised nodes, there's not much left. The XT code and/or BIP101 literally does undermine decentralisation, so you're throwing around very strong accusations on the basis of a secondary point of contention. Shaky ground.

This has nothing to do with the assessment of what is within the code of BIP101, I do not think that XT undermines decentralization and censorship-resistance. I also do not think that XT includes the policing of the Bitcoin protocol as well. This has nothing to do with the code and has everything to do with implying that they will put these things in the code at a later point in time and that therefore we should not trust them which in my opinion is irrelevant.

Nobody is that obtuse by mistake. Notice his username... if that isn't a clue...



Brilliant observation, thank you.

And how does that relate to what muyuu said?

I do not care who writes the code, what matters is what is in the code itself. Even if the code was written by the devil himself or any other monster from the annals of history, I would still support it, because the code that is within BIP101 does represent the best path for Bitcoin going into the future, compared to the alternatives.

I am saying that I do not care about who writes the code and what kind of a person they are or even what their motivations might be, it should not be a popularity contest. This is my opinion and the verifiable facts do not change this whatsoever.

That's completely unfair to muyuu, you should know better, shouldn't you? He talked about the function and network effects of Mike's coding almost exclusively for the whole post, so you then level the criticism that he's talking about personalities and not code?

That's another dirty little argument you're trying to slip past us all, all while accusing muyuu of ad hominem!

bitcoin does not need the masses, but it is the masses that needs bitcoin.

bitcoin does not need any of them corporations, but it is these parasites that needs bitcoin.

bitcoin does not adapt to anything, but the rest that adapts to bitcoin.

you are free to use it or not, transact with it or not, pay a higher fee or not.

else you are also free to simply fork off and use some other altcoin that suits your on chain coffee tipping fantasies as there is plenty of them already.

bitcoin is not a democracy, still...

Fair enough, that is a valid criticism, I would support BIP100 or BIP103 instead of BIP101 when implemented, especially if that means we can reach a higher degree of consensus.

I am saying that I do not care about who writes the code and what kind of a person they are or even what their motivations might be, it should not be a popularity contest. This is my opinion and the verifiable facts do not change this whatsoever.

Block scarcity is a important economical feature of bitcoin. Assuming Bitcoin will keep growing and growing is not the answer. Block size should scale according to demand, not according to assumptions. That's the only thing I have against BIP101

It's verifiable facts. Your understanding of fallacies is that of a 14 year-old.

More ad hominem from the usual suspects. I do not care who writes the code, what matters is what is in the code itself. Even if the code was written by the devil himself or any other monster from the annals of history, I would still support it, because the code that is within BIP101 does represent the best path for Bitcoin going into the future, compared to the alternatives.

I'm aware, and the redlisting "idea". His ideas often go in these directions, including his node prioritization schemes used in XT.

But if he seems he's hit a wall in his undermining of Bitcoin's decentralisation and censorship-resistance from within development, then he will try from the outside. I think it's a matter of time. Gavin already joined the "alliance" and is actively working in the policing of Bitcoin. Talk about conflict of interest.

lol go look up his proof of passport scheme he was trying to push on miners. Basically miners wouldn't produce valid blocks unless they had a valid passport for govt agencies to see who is mining.

If he can't get his way, and he won't, he will become a "blockchain technologies" person and try attacking Bitcoin from the outside instead of the inside. Pushing for making non-policeable cryptos illegal will be on his agenda sooner or later.

And now Mike Hearn joins the bankers at REC3V and their blockchains.

"Conflict of interest" anyone?