In order to understand the terms of the debate you'd need to spend
some time studying the controversy and have some geek acumen
too. Obviously these libertarian pundits have more important
things to do.
The XTers can put down their proposal in very simple terms:
"we need bigger blocks", and it looks like they have better
PR connections too. Core supporters ought to respond with
layman-understandable bullet points.
Topic: Celebrity "Libertarians" who advocate the Bitcoin XT putsch (Read 340 times)
They're beginning to out themselves:
Can these people really claim to want money that's "independent from government influence", as Jeff Berwick puts it, when the change to Bitcoin is being promoted by investment from (or association with former stellar employees) of Goldman Sachs/Wal-Mart/Accel/Santander/PayPal etc?
Can they really claim to be credible libertarians, seeking to promote a suppressed idea, when they themselves only promote one side of the debate?
It's not too late to save face and actually give a platform to these "smart guys" whose opposing opinion they claim to have respect for.
- Roger Ver on Jeff Berwick's Anarchast
- Ian Freeman on Free Talk Live (regular occurence)
- Reason.com's Andrea Castillo claims XT represents the libertarian viewpoint
- Jim Harper of Cato.org explains why XT is not an existential threat to Bitcoin
Can these people really claim to want money that's "independent from government influence", as Jeff Berwick puts it, when the change to Bitcoin is being promoted by investment from (or association with former stellar employees) of Goldman Sachs/Wal-Mart/Accel/Santander/PayPal etc?
Can they really claim to be credible libertarians, seeking to promote a suppressed idea, when they themselves only promote one side of the debate?
It's not too late to save face and actually give a platform to these "smart guys" whose opposing opinion they claim to have respect for.
Jump to: