Topic: BlockStream or BitcoinXT? Those are your choices, gentlemen. - page 4. (Read 6848 times)

Why not bigger blocks without XT? 

The shill candidates have been subverting anti XT arguments in a highly developed fashion. I checked back a little just now to your exchanges with Krona Rev, you've been arguing straight, and having a productive debate. You seem as reasonable as you claim on that basis.


But it will be after the fork. Especially if the address format and the magic bytes have to change, in the event that Bitcoin and XT are running in parallel after January 11th.


I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion.

This could so easily have been the other way around. Andresen voluntarily relinquished lead dev role to Wladimir van der Laan to join the Bitcoin Foundation. If he had still been in charge, he was one of a few with commit access to the git repository. If, given those circumstances, everything else had transpired the same way, then Gavin could at this point in time have already commited BIP 101 to the Bitcoin main branch, causing far more serious divisions in the dev team than we see today. I predict that a group composed of Greg Maxwell, Mark Friedenbach, Luke Dashjr, Pieter Wuille etc would be the people forking the client. I would be in that camp, given those precise circumstances.

The obverse of the "fork to check the devs" principle is that it can be used for malign purposes as well as those that are benevolent. My assessment is that this threat is malignant.



Would you agree that this range of choices should be expanded? I don't want either of the outcomes you have presented.

You do realize that Bitcoin will continue running without BlockStream or XT right?  You seem to think you need to take some dire action right now to save Bitcoin.  I would suggest that your attitude is exactly the type of panic that those two teams are trying to play on.  I mean, supporting XT for solving a larger block size debate because you want "an alternative client that I can run right now" seems like the actions of an impatient and frightened person.  If you have some financial involvement with BlockStream or XT, I can see why you'd push those as the only options.  If you aren't involved with either of those projects, then you need to open your eyes and think for yourself.  BlockStream and XT are both bad options.  Don't support either one.

First of all Bitcoin XT is not an altcoin. To think that we should never hard fork is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized.

There are right now only two fundamental choices we can make. We can either vote for Core or we can vote for BIP101, these right now are our only two choices. You can call me dim-witted if you would like but I would prefer it if you could prove me wrong. Can you point me towards an alternative client that I can run right now that will support bigger blocks which is not BIP101?

Bitcon should not be related to any main company, to avoid being called corporate coin. It will squander everything bitcoin stands for if that ever happen.
It seems that it was planned because I never heard of BlockStream before and now they are here to the rescue Core... interesting.

Fair enough, its cool, you seem like a reasonable enough person. At least you are not attacking me and calling me a shill lol. You are even telling some of these pro Core trolls to chill and not be so malicious which is admirable. Check out this argument I made if you would like, it is still ongoing, since I am still preparing my response, which i will post later this evening. Since Krona Rev has made some excellent points in terms of defining the conditions for success.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12215043

BlockStream is not the answer and BitcoinXT is an altcoin.  Saying those are the only two choices for Bitcoin is extremely dim-witted.

I don't know about that, I have been engaging quite a few people and it always directly concerns their argument. Again, I am sorry that I haven't spoken with you yet, but there is alot going on.

I do not demand any thing. Its just that you come onto this thread claiming that our arguments drop like flies without even attempting a rebuttal or pointing out how I or anyone else for that matter is wrong in their argumentation. When there has been sophisticated argumentation on this thread on both sides. Just saying that our arguments fail instead of actually trying to prove us wrong is not a particularly convincing argument, it is actually not a real argument at all. You are just giving people the false impression that the arguments coming from the XT camp are weak without actually proving that your self. Surely you don’t expect this type of dialogue to be convincing for intelligent people?

I don't think this is anti XT news, this is a weak attempt to introduce a third option, "Blockstream"? to the debate.

Why hasn't ANYONE been talking about Blockstream on this forum, at the same frequency as XT over the last few weeks? This is the first I'm reading of it and while I don't read everything, I scan this main forum daily...I would have seen it...

Looking forward to your reply, thanks.

Sorry, I've only been replying to the points for which I formed an answer, I don't specifically remember what you've been saying up to now. I will pay more attention to you, if that is what you demand.

If our arguments do drop like flies like you say they do, then why don’t you attempt to rebuttal one of my arguments directly? Since I have not seen you attempt to do this yet. I am a reasonable person so if I am wrong I would like to know if that is the case, so please enlighten me if you can.

Just checked the r/bitcoinxt sub and was very surprised to see over 10,000 subscribers. I'm sure plenty are fake as you like but that's more than I was expecting.

Posting large red letters in every thread doesn't help your cause.  You just seem like a troll.

Side-chains are far fro "solutions". It needs more development to call it as a solution.


Are you spamming? Its not a problem to oppose XT but don't spread FUD or disinformation. If you have valid proofs, post it.

Two known CIA/NSA assets infiltrated in the Bitcoin community - Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn - have joined forces to push a hastily concocted privacy nightmare/scamcoin, which they call Bitcoin-XT.

It is currently completely irrelevant, owing to an absolute lack of financial, economical, technical or social support.

Perhaps it's good to separate between necessary conditions vs. sufficient conditions for success. You seem to be saying that significantly more people using Bitcoin is not sufficient, because decentralization and financial freedom are necessary.

Propositionally we could assert that the following would be true in every world:

SD: "Bitcoin is successful." -> "Bitcoin is decentralized."
SFF: "Bitcoin is successful." -> "Bitcoin supports financial freedom."

Or, if we want to be classical and avoid implication, the following are both always true:

SD: "Bitcoin is unsuccessful." or "Bitcoin is decentralized."
SFF: "Bitcoin is unsuccessful." or "Bitcoin supports financial freedom."

I agree that both decentralization and supporting financial freedom are necessary. (In fact, now that I've clearly stated this, I'm not sure I currently consider Bitcoin "successful." I would tend to consider Bitcoin to be successful at the moment, but I also believe that mining is currently too centralized.)

Is a signficant increase in adoption necessary? By "significant" here I mean something more than twice the current users. I haven't thought deeply about the specific numbers. I can try an absolute percentage just to be precise. Is it possible for Bitcoin to be successful if less than 0.1% of the people in the world use it? Actually, I'm inclined to distinguish between "use it directly" (meaning the individual holds the private keys and sends transactions to be included into the block chain without using a third party service) and "use it indirectly" (via third party services). "Mass adoption" would very likely give different percentages for direct use and indirect use (as has the current level of adoption). You can decide if "use it" means "use it directly" or "use it indirectly" -- and you can adjust the percentage -- before deciding on an answer.

(Incidentally, while I find the discussion interesting, I can't be online often. If I don't reply quickly, or even daily, it's not with ill intent.)

source here


The key word here is "replaced".  With all the kerfuffle about block size, people forget that to make blockstream viable, bitcoin has to change.

hdbuck is the poster child for Core.

lol fork your opinion. noob. you mean nothing.
even dogecoin woulndt want anything to do with you.