Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 77.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 18, 2015, 09:10:34 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 08:16:35 AM

L.M.A.O

cens0rshipppp!

#R3KT! Cheesy

ps: for people still having trouble to read, this conference is NOT about the blocksize: "scaling bitcoin conference"

The haters last laugh, before they get their laughable cap teared down next year. Banning and censoring helps a lot. But not your side, as all the cheerleders of the Totalitarians ridiculously believe.

there is no totalitarian cheerleader (otoh right back at you, statist/corporatist) here if not for bitcoin total victory only.

im not letting reddit noobs and charlatan wannabes spreading misinformation and fud about the most promising technology of the century.

bitcoin is doing fine, ignoring your whining attacks, socialist brigading, and pseudodemocratic voting will lead it towards new highs.

now if you'd just fork off already, that would be surprisingly constructive from you trolls.

talk is cheap kiddos.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 18, 2015, 09:10:34 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 08:16:35 AM

L.M.A.O

cens0rshipppp!

#R3KT! Cheesy

ps: for people still having trouble to read, this conference is NOT about the blocksize: "scaling bitcoin conference"

The haters last laugh, before they get their laughable cap teared down next year. Banning and censoring helps a lot. But not your side, as all the cheerleders of the Totalitarians ridiculously believe.

Next year? LOL, remember when you thought XT was going to happen Right Fucking Now, but then it failed?

When XT 2.0, AKA Unlimited, fails next year, I bet you will just move the goalposts again.

Poor Peter R, he got #R3KT by the sensor ships! Cry

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 08:16:35 AM

L.M.A.O

cens0rshipppp!

#R3KT! Cheesy

ps: for people still having trouble to read, this conference is NOT about the blocksize: "scaling bitcoin conference"

The haters last laugh, before they get their laughable cap teared down next year. Banning and censoring helps a lot. But not your side, as all the cheerleders of the Totalitarians ridiculously believe.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: muyuu on November 18, 2015, 07:58:22 AM

tl;dr lol get rekt mate

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

L.M.A.O

cens0rshipppp!

#R3KT! Cheesy

ps: for people still having trouble to read, this conference is NOT about the blocksize: "scaling bitcoin conference"

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 18, 2015, 05:42:05 AM

Quote from: muyuu on November 18, 2015, 05:32:58 AM

Ah. So many "bitcoiners" basing their decisions on charismatic leaders. A mindset so incredibly toxic for Bitcoin and so anti-cypherpunk values.

Charisma has always big influence. Otherwise there won't be this endless thread where some 'bitcoiners' endlessly concentrate their 'energy' on Mike H., Gavin A. or Peter R. on one side and praise the Totalitarians on the other side.

By the way, thanks for the heads up.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-109#post-3862

Seen here posted by you: https://archive.is/rgFev

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 18, 2015, 05:42:05 AM

Quote from: muyuu on November 18, 2015, 05:32:58 AM

Ah. So many "bitcoiners" basing their decisions on charismatic leaders. A mindset so incredibly toxic for Bitcoin and so anti-cypherpunk values.

Charisma has always big influence. Otherwise there won't be this endless thread where some 'bitcoiners' endlessly concentrate their 'energy' on Mike H., Gavin A. or Peter R. on one side and praise the Totalitarians on the other side.

Of course it does, and the more mainstreamer sheep there are in the community, the more herding there will be. The test for Bitcoin is carrying on ignoring this intense noise trying to destabilise it and influence it.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: muyuu on November 18, 2015, 05:32:58 AM

Ah. So many "bitcoiners" basing their decisions on charismatic leaders. A mindset so incredibly toxic for Bitcoin and so anti-cypherpunk values.

Charisma has always big influence. Otherwise there won't be this endless thread where some 'bitcoiners' endlessly concentrate their 'energy' on Mike H., Gavin A. or Peter R. on one side and praise the Totalitarians on the other side.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Hide & seek. That's Bitcoin's killer app. ^^

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Ah. So many "bitcoiners" basing their decisions on charismatic leaders. A mindset so incredibly toxic for Bitcoin and so anti-cypherpunk values.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 18, 2015, 04:06:54 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 03:12:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 03:02:29 PM

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

Yes, and that's the problem. Communist one-party systems don't work. The market will tear down this wall and enable competition.

communist? bitcoin a one party system? market tearing down walls?

lel, the superlatives of your ignorance are infinite, flachwichser.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 03:12:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 03:02:29 PM

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

Yes, and that's the problem. Communist one-party systems don't work. The market will tear down this wall and enable competition.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 02:27:13 AM

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 06:00:06 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 05:47:28 PM

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 05:22:48 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:27:06 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 17, 2015, 10:10:18 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:04:22 AM

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/605156118109818881

Quote from: Andreas Antonopoulos

The block size debate is healthy and necessary. The doomsayers and fatalists are, as usual, wrong.

oh hello there Roll Eyes

A reminder here, you are the one who thinks that Bitcoin is to fragile to handle multiple competing implementations, or multiple options for people to choose from. You think we should be free to choose from a single option which is Core, which I think is the equivalent of totalitarianism.

XT people are the ones who believe in Hearns fear mongering about a hard landing off the capacity cliff from which Bitcoin will not recover.

Look at XT reddit, they are talking like its some doomsday in about 3 months where Bitcoin will fail. They even have pictures with bombs lol.

I think that both sides are guilty of this, after all some small blockists think that increasing the blocksize whatsoever would lead to centralization to the point of destroying Bitcoin. I think it is fair to say that on either end of this extreme spectrum there are people saying that the other side will destroy or irrevocable undermine the fundamental principles of Bitcoin.

I agree. Both sides need to be more civil towards each other and try to work towards compromise. It can be done.

hmm no. these fuckwits deserve every incivilities they had.

this toxic so called community surely have no technological argument to raise the blocksize as of now, they spread fud about bitcoin's demises from the very begining, they practically wanted to brute fork bitcoin at 75%, they brigaded all over reddit, acted like stupid little kids, insulted all the core devs, ruined the dev mailing list with their sophisms and blatant misconceptions... Plus all the whining about ad homs, censorship, the bitching about blockstream, all the bullshit about how life is unfair, bitcoin is unfair, decentralize development, big blocks for them corporations, blablabla...

so what now we should have a compromise? lmao, the only compromise is them forking off in january with hearndresssen.

and good friggin riddance.

The limit will be raised next year. Whether the minority of the vulgar pseudo-bitcoiners will be stupid enough to stay on a miniblockchain is irrelevant. They are free to do so.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 06:00:06 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 05:47:28 PM

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 05:22:48 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:27:06 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 17, 2015, 10:10:18 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:04:22 AM

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/605156118109818881

Quote from: Andreas Antonopoulos

The block size debate is healthy and necessary. The doomsayers and fatalists are, as usual, wrong.

oh hello there Roll Eyes

A reminder here, you are the one who thinks that Bitcoin is to fragile to handle multiple competing implementations, or multiple options for people to choose from. You think we should be free to choose from a single option which is Core, which I think is the equivalent of totalitarianism.

XT people are the ones who believe in Hearns fear mongering about a hard landing off the capacity cliff from which Bitcoin will not recover.

Look at XT reddit, they are talking like its some doomsday in about 3 months where Bitcoin will fail. They even have pictures with bombs lol.

I think that both sides are guilty of this, after all some small blockists think that increasing the blocksize whatsoever would lead to centralization to the point of destroying Bitcoin. I think it is fair to say that on either end of this extreme spectrum there are people saying that the other side will destroy or irrevocable undermine the fundamental principles of Bitcoin.

I agree. Both sides need to be more civil towards each other and try to work towards compromise. It can be done.

hmm no. these fuckwits deserve every incivilities they had.

this toxic so called community have no technical argument to raise the blocksize as of now, they spread fud about bitcoin's demises from the very begining, they practically wanted to brute fork bitcoin at 75%, they brigaded all over reddit, acted like stupid little kids, insulted all the core devs, ruined the dev mailing list with their sophisms and blatant misconceptions... Plus all the whining about ad homs, censorship, the bitching about blockstream, all the bullshit about how life is unfair, bitcoin is unfair, decentralize development, big blocks for them corporations, blablabla...

so what now we should have a compromise? lmao, the only compromise is them forking off in january with hearndresssen.

and good friggin riddance.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 06:32:29 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 06:12:11 PM

Quote from: Larry David

A good compromise is when both parties are equally unhappy

Fixed. Good quote. (car pool episode, an all time classic).

I'm not sure whether we should be drawing from nihilistic comedy as a way of informing software engineering decisions.

One thing that we can agree on at least, which is that the car pool episode was an all time classic. Larry David uniting the Bitcoin community! lol Cheesy

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 06:12:11 PM

Quote from: Larry David

A good compromise is when both parties are equally unhappy

Fixed. Good quote. (car pool episode, an all time classic).

I'm not sure whether we should be drawing from nihilistic comedy as a way of informing software engineering decisions.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on November 17, 2015, 06:06:41 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 06:02:42 PM

I entirely agree.

I would support BIP100, BIP102, BIP103 or maybe even BIP106 when implemented as a compromise instead of BIP101 in the interests of reaching consensus, regardless of who does the implementation.

chalk you up as just another small blockist then

Definitely not. lol

However compromise in the interest of reaching consensus can be healthy. There is a funny quote the origins of it somewhat unknown but I will attribute it to Larry David anyway:

Quote from: Larry David

A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 06:04:48 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 05:58:56 PM

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 05:17:27 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:24:40 AM

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 08:49:37 AM

btw the recent update is a soft fork yet will still go into effect only with 95% hashpower.

Yet XT will hard fork with only 75%.

Trying to fork without consensus is damaging and irresponsible. Bitcoin was designed to prevent a majority forcing their will on a minority (if it comes to that).

I hope the contentious hard fork will not be successful.

It is impossible for a majority to force their will on a minority in Bitcoin, you can simply choose not to run the code. Saying that we must have an absolute consensus is damaging and irresponsible

95% is not absolute consensus. 75% is too low.

And yes the intention is to force me as a Bitcoin user onto XT/ 101 big blocks. The hypothetical intention as clearly stated by Gavin is to create hard fork with the thinking that remaining services and miners will move onto the new fork and the old one will die. Anybody who is not happy (and that would no doubt be at least a significant minority) will be left with nothing and forced to use big blocks.

The minority chain is less likely to die with 75% consensus compared to 95% consensus. Having 75% consensus increases the likelihood of the old chain surviving if enough people choose to support it, which is the opposite of what you are claiming is the intended effect.

But we dont have to speculate about intent. Gavin stated the intent clearly. You are right and I disagree with Gavin. I told him so. I believe that if it comes to it there will be a split and two chains will emerge.

Gavin does not think that that will happen and his intent as he states is for that not to happen.

As an aside, I think it is inevitable, that at some point Bitcoin will split when visions for its future (about any issue) are split and incompatible. This does not have to happen now tho.

I actually agree with you that a split is inevitable, in the future. I also agree with you that this does not need to happen now. However I do think that if that is what the economic majority desires and there is a fundamental difference of believe in a significantly large enough group of people then a split would be justified, I hope that is not the case.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 06:02:42 PM

I entirely agree.

I would support BIP100, BIP102, BIP103 or maybe even BIP106 when implemented as a compromise instead of BIP101 in the interests of reaching consensus, regardless of who does the implementation.

chalk you up as just another small blockist then

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 257

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 05:58:56 PM

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 05:17:27 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:24:40 AM

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 08:49:37 AM

btw the recent update is a soft fork yet will still go into effect only with 95% hashpower.

Yet XT will hard fork with only 75%.

Trying to fork without consensus is damaging and irresponsible. Bitcoin was designed to prevent a majority forcing their will on a minority (if it comes to that).

I hope the contentious hard fork will not be successful.

It is impossible for a majority to force their will on a minority in Bitcoin, you can simply choose not to run the code. Saying that we must have an absolute consensus is damaging and irresponsible

95% is not absolute consensus. 75% is too low.

And yes the intention is to force me as a Bitcoin user onto XT/ 101 big blocks. The hypothetical intention as clearly stated by Gavin is to create hard fork with the thinking that remaining services and miners will move onto the new fork and the old one will die. Anybody who is not happy (and that would no doubt be at least a significant minority) will be left with nothing and forced to use big blocks.

The minority chain is less likely to die with 75% consensus compared to 95% consensus. Having 75% consensus increases the likelihood of the old chain surviving if enough people choose to support it, which is the opposite of what you are claiming is the intended effect.

But we dont have to speculate about intent. Gavin stated the intent clearly. You are right and I disagree with Gavin. I told him so. I believe that if it comes to it there will be a split and two chains will emerge.

Gavin does not think that that will happen and his intent as he states is for that not to happen.

As an aside, I think it is inevitable, that at some point Bitcoin will split when visions for its future (about any issue) are split and incompatible. This does not have to happen now tho.

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 77. (Read 378992 times)