Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 83. (Read 378993 times)

Cheers for that. This deserves archiving, just in case.

https://archive.is/gjXxM#selection-4667.0-4671.244

gavin has been #rekt on this issue for as long as I can remember. I stumped him with the question when I first raised the link between fungibility and digital traceability, on this forum, to which he still hasn't responded ...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.121108

I miss gmaxwell as nullc on reddit he was a great guy and even replied to me a couple of times with some basic questions about multisig, even tho im a noob when it comes to the technical aspect he was nice to answer. Anyway I hope he ever comes back at least on reddit because as far as I know he has left now from... pretty much everywhere (except here on this forum).

That's the thing with overly lenient moderation. Charlatans and pseudoscientists like Peter R. Rizun who doctor the fuck out of their results and sensationalise their work for political means hound out people doing actual work like Maxwell.

On the bright side Maxwell's main line of work is not putting together the most moronic graphs ever seen in the dev list, and he will be continuing with development.

nice play peter..



https://archive.is/bbzBV

alas the technical and serious discussion regarding bitcoin's development will go fully underground once the dev mailing list fades into irrelevance.

and you wacko wont be able to phagocytize its development anymore.



also, im asking the mods here to permaban this mofo.

they'll all fail and go bankrupt.

It's expected that VC money and the State would work on de-anonymising unsuspecting users. I have more issue with the noisy pseudo-bitcoiners cheering the efforts to co-opt the protocol and make it harder for users to stay anonymous, and their funds fungible and censorship-free.

By my own very speculative estimates the "industry" you speak of controls less than 1% of the money supply, a few independent full nodes and 0% of the hashing power.

Thus, it remains to be seen whether or not this governance coup would ever garner support, much less rapidly.

It is an unfortunate situation where some of you have been brainwashed into believing that Bitcoin cannot make it without the "industry" of what's essentially banking parasites and their VC backers.

Typical North American egocentric herd behaviour.  

The idiots on Reddit buying this FUD too  

"Oh n0es! Bitcoin censorship-resistance is done because a few corporate statist sockpuppets have figured out you can track the blockchain!"

I've been saying for a while that after their attempt to bloat Bitcoin into Paypal 2.0 inevitably fails the "fungibility" attacks are their next battling grounds.

gotta admit these USGmoles do not waste a minute to come up with some new BS around each corner...

TBF, Bitlicense, bitcoinXT, and now Blockchain Alliance.. wow


http://trilema.com/2012/the-politics-of-bitcoin/#selection-101.0-108.0

He's talking about his current work in the GaviNSAlliance. Read the post and stop wasting my time with your nonsense.

He was talking about a hypothetical future where there is no government, he is asking the question of whether it would be justified under this scenario to help catch bad people using the blockchain. It is a completely hypothetical question about a future that is most likely very far away. You are taking his words out of context, your accusations are not accurate.

Today Gavin pretty much admitted that he's down to end fungibility and enable law enforcement on Bitcoin because "think of the baddies":

https://archive.is/4jL7n#selection-13347.0-13407.316

i'd surely keep my coins away from any corporatist cryptowetdreams.

bitcoins does not need coinbase, bitpay, tbf et al. (inasmuch as 'coredevs')

they need bitcoin otoh. parasites.

There are good reosons to support XT, increasing the blocksize is one of them.

But but but muh crypto-anarchism!! We gotta stop da censorships!!111!11one!!!

/s

Most XT supporters are literally just blindly circlejerking at this point and ignoring the fact that there are plenty of other solutions that...people actually agree on...but of course they have to find some way to try to bitch about this massive "censorship", it's like /r/bitcoin and their hard-on for forum.bitcoin.com at the moment and /r/btc and /r/bitcoinxt.

I think you are right. There is always something to talk about, just different variations of bad things. It's like someone is not wanting us to enjoy our time here (either it's some scam, closure, or this). I'm fairly certain that Hearn has connections to those that we hate the most. The question is how far do these connections go inside the Bitcoin ecosystem? (let's not forget Coinbase CEO)

A major issue that reduces your ability to persuade an outside observer towards your argument is that you seem to think it is ok to pick and choose when an argument is valid. On the one hand you argue that Satoshi's decisions are important when they support your argument, but when someone posts a number of absolutely relevant posts from Satoshi that completely disagree with your position then you decide it is time they must be ignored.

My personal view is that market forces will win the day in this slowly drawn out blocksize drama - not a few developers who were handed over the reins of a single reference client. No end users have voted for a fee market or a blocksize cap and ultimately that will not benefit bitcoin and will be rejected if the economic majority want a different bitcoin as transaction volumes approach the cap.

Arguing that the economic majority cannot be allowed to decide the rules of the protocol is plainly ridiculous as the implementation the majority run is bitcoin - longest valid chain or not, what matters is if it has value. I find the idea of the 21 million limit being raised anathema to me personally, but if the economic majority decide it is to be raised then it will be raised. What makes this an edge case is the threat of catastrophic loss of value to stakeholders in the system, the same powerful economic force which prevents a 51% attack from being attempted even with centralisation of mining.

The only thing that interests me now about the blocksize debate is how the network forks and what form that takes. Major companies in the space like Coinbase and Bitpay are now publicly taking a stand against the Core developer position which is extraordinary on the face of it. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out and whether you and your colleagues who actively promote the limitation of bitcoin with such gusto are happy with the outcome.

Will you still use bitcoin if an industry supported reference client (with a scaling blocksize inbuilt) rapidly garners support and sidelines Core and it's developers?