Please check the batteries in your humor detector! 
There is a reason why smileys were invented.
Topic: Coinbase is overstepping the bounds we should give it regarding Bitcoin XT (Read 6618 times)
November 11, 2015, 03:02:42 AM
There is a reason why smileys were invented.
November 11, 2015, 02:52:44 AM
"urgent action required now"
Sorry, Not Tonight Dear!
Do you normally quote people out of context to imply they said the exact opposite of what they actually said?
Do you normally assume the worst of other people's intentions/abilities?
I left your "I'm parodying XTurds" quote marks in. Obviously, I'm joining in your pile-on, because it's fun to make fun of the Sore Loserman Gavinistas.
Please check the batteries in your humor detector!
November 11, 2015, 01:15:02 AM
Typical of corporations... Like in everything else, they will ruin something and strangle everything we love about it.
November 11, 2015, 12:43:12 AM
Bitcoin is effectively dead if we have been forced to change to XT, the dream is gone. We need a change that everyone agrees with that is simply made through consensus.If someone gives himself a right to track the way you spend your bitcoins.
November 11, 2015, 12:03:21 AM
"urgent action required now"
Sorry, Not Tonight Dear!
Do you normally quote people out of context to imply they said the exact opposite of what they actually said?
November 10, 2015, 11:50:10 PM
I really think Coinbase is a great service, although they're pushing it a little too far with making a "new" bitcoin. I believe since Bitcoin is an open source currency, maybe we should have a thread on here requesting and arguing about some good features and changes that should be made to the current bitcoin, and a representative of the community compiles all the ideas together. Not some just-for-profit company. All they're doing is trying to make an alt-coin that is profitable toward them. Maybe Theymos should really ban all BTCXT supporters. I sure don't support them. I'm just here for the free tx fees 
November 10, 2015, 11:45:51 PM
Is the recent fall partly due to coinbase CEO plan to push through XT contentious fork and change leadership team of reference client?
Certainly we had a previous fall from 280 -> 220 right after XT was announced. There was no doubt then.
Its more ambiguous now because the fall was preceded by a very quick run up. Yet It occurred immediately when the story about Coinbase trying to push contentious fork started spreading, and a raise in threads and discussion about XT. The fall was very rapid.
It seems that the potential progress with XT is badly judged by market.
Certainly we had a previous fall from 280 -> 220 right after XT was announced. There was no doubt then.
Its more ambiguous now because the fall was preceded by a very quick run up. Yet It occurred immediately when the story about Coinbase trying to push contentious fork started spreading, and a raise in threads and discussion about XT. The fall was very rapid.
It seems that the potential progress with XT is badly judged by market.
LOL are you that stupid?
This is how stupid some of the antiXT idiots can be.
Here is the hint, 44,000 btc was auctioned recently. The number of registers are much lower than expect. Its more reasonable to say, the btc was auctioned at much lower price than the exchange rate.
I have read XT people here complaining about ad hominems yet you just used ad hominems against me, but that does not matter.
What I find disgraceful is that:
... The first and most poisonous ad hominems were by the XT supporters against many of the core developers and supporters, who have contributed so much to Bitcoin (before it even existed!), privacy and decentralisation. They done this often for no or little financial reward. They deserve some courtesy and respect, (as does Gavin).
Anyway I don't find what you say convincing at all for many reasons, I wont go into all of them. The auction occurred after crash. The auction was known before and should have been priced in. The price is not known. The price is itself a reflection of sentiment and value that would be impacted by XT fork possibility.
Pointing out a pattern of pro-XT news leading to price crashes is relevant. Sorry if you dont like hearing it, you dont have to call me stupid.
November 10, 2015, 11:16:35 PM
"urgent action required now"
Sorry, Not Tonight Dear!
November 10, 2015, 10:54:18 PM
I use Coinbase and i never heard of this. XT has very little support in term of hashrate, as such i don't really get what the point of the whole discussion is. I don't see what Coinbase actually has to do with this? Coinbase has no hashrate so whatever their political agenda would be, it is completely irrelevant.
In the first place, having bigger block means less tx fee, so i don't see how this benefit any companies or miners.
In the first place, having bigger block means less tx fee, so i don't see how this benefit any companies or miners.
November 10, 2015, 10:52:40 PM
Coinbase CEO comments certainly make a difference. No one should give a whit whether Coinbase runs their node on Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin XT. Only bitcoin miners decide if a hard fork will take place, Coinbase really has no say in the matter, but markets hate uncertainty, imagined or not.
November 10, 2015, 10:48:46 PM
Is the recent fall partly due to coinbase CEO plan to push through XT contentious fork and change leadership team of reference client?
Certainly we had a previous fall from 280 -> 220 right after XT was announced. There was no doubt then.
Its more ambiguous now because the fall was preceded by a very quick run up. Yet It occurred immediately when the story about Coinbase trying to push contentious fork started spreading, and a raise in threads and discussion about XT. The fall was very rapid.
It seems that the potential progress with XT is badly judged by market.
Certainly we had a previous fall from 280 -> 220 right after XT was announced. There was no doubt then.
Its more ambiguous now because the fall was preceded by a very quick run up. Yet It occurred immediately when the story about Coinbase trying to push contentious fork started spreading, and a raise in threads and discussion about XT. The fall was very rapid.
It seems that the potential progress with XT is badly judged by market.
LOL are you that stupid?
This is how stupid some of the antiXT idiots can be.
Here is the hint, 44,000 btc was auctioned recently. The number of registers are much lower than expect. Its more reasonable to say, the btc was auctioned at much lower price than the exchange rate.
November 10, 2015, 10:19:40 PM
Is the recent fall partly due to coinbase CEO plan to push through XT contentious fork and change leadership team of reference client?
Certainly we had a previous fall from 280 -> 220 right after XT was announced. There was no doubt then.
Its more ambiguous now because the fall was preceded by a very quick run up. Yet It occurred immediately when the story about Coinbase trying to push contentious fork started spreading, and a raise in threads and discussion about XT. The fall was very rapid.
It seems that the potential progress with XT is badly judged by market.
Certainly we had a previous fall from 280 -> 220 right after XT was announced. There was no doubt then.
Its more ambiguous now because the fall was preceded by a very quick run up. Yet It occurred immediately when the story about Coinbase trying to push contentious fork started spreading, and a raise in threads and discussion about XT. The fall was very rapid.
It seems that the potential progress with XT is badly judged by market.
November 10, 2015, 09:45:29 AM
Your view about regular manual increases as becomes necessary is the same as mine, hoewer in situation where small group blocking any increase at all, Im afraid consensus is impossible here. The longer the status quo of 1MB is keept, the less faith I have a consensus is possible here and any solution like XT is better than waiting for impossible to happen (consensus with those defending 1MB).
There is no small group blocking any increase at all (not at least amongst the core developers) and there is going to be another meetup next month to further discussions about increasing the block size.
So at least you will see yourselves next month whether rational decision like increasing to 2MB soon and reevaluating the sitation in about one year whether another increase is required based on how much the blocks are filled up, or whether the discussion will lead to no consensus again (basically blocked situation in favour to the 1MB supporteers).
I bet no decsion will be made and you will still keep saying there is no small group blocking any increase at all.
this conference is about SCALING bitcoin.
please stop confusing blocksize as an efficient way to improve bitcoin's scalability.
November 10, 2015, 08:59:53 AM
I bet no decsion will be made and you will still keep saying there is no small group blocking any increase at all.
How much would you like to bet?
(my guess is not much)
If you'd like to "put your BTC where your mouth is" then I'll take on a bet with you (say 1 BTC which would need to be sent to a trusted escrow).
Im not dumb enought to bet on what you will be saying next month or tommorow. And about the first part, I guess you might have much better knowledge about the developers stance on the matter thus Im not going to bet as well, at least your reply gives bit hope my scepticism might be unjustificable here. We will see anyway.
November 10, 2015, 08:43:22 AM
I bet no decsion will be made and you will still keep saying there is no small group blocking any increase at all.
How much would you like to bet?
(my guess is not much)
If you'd like to "put your BTC where your mouth is" then I'll take on a bet with you (say 1 BTC which would need to be sent to a trusted escrow).
November 10, 2015, 08:41:22 AM
Your view about regular manual increases as becomes necessary is the same as mine, hoewer in situation where small group blocking any increase at all, Im afraid consensus is impossible here. The longer the status quo of 1MB is keept, the less faith I have a consensus is possible here and any solution like XT is better than waiting for impossible to happen (consensus with those defending 1MB).
There is no small group blocking any increase at all (not at least amongst the core developers) and there is going to be another meetup next month to further discussions about increasing the block size.
So at least you will see yourselves next month whether rational decision like increasing to 2MB soon and reevaluating the sitation in about one year whether another increase is required based on how much the blocks are filled up, or whether the discussion will lead to no consensus again (basically blocked situation in favour to the 1MB supporteers).
I bet no decsion will be made and you will still keep saying there is no small group blocking any increase at all.
November 10, 2015, 06:40:38 AM
Your view about regular manual increases as becomes necessary is the same as mine, hoewer in situation where small group blocking any increase at all, Im afraid consensus is impossible here. The longer the status quo of 1MB is keept, the less faith I have a consensus is possible here and any solution like XT is better than waiting for impossible to happen (consensus with those defending 1MB).
There is no small group blocking any increase at all (not at least amongst the core developers) and there is going to be another meetup next month to further discussions about increasing the block size.
The XT shills just keep ignoring reality and shouting "we need to change and put Mike Hearn in charge ASAP" because that is what they have been told (or paid) to say.
Well - sorry guys - but your rubbish "urgent action required now" mantra is simply not working and most Bitcoin professionals and enthusiasts really don't want Mike Hearn to become the CEO of Bitcoin.
November 10, 2015, 06:31:13 AM
The block size needs increasing substantially over the next few years to be suitable for increased transactions. How will we achieve that is open to debate. It also depends on the state of the art computer technology.
I have no problem with that. So let's find a consensus between 1MB and 8MB (I'm fine with every value within those bounds the users select). If we see that this new limit is reached we decide again.
If you want an automatic increase to 8GB, just fork bitcoin! I will not follow your fork.
Your view about regular manual increases as becomes necessary is the same as mine, hoewer in situation where small group blocking any increase at all, Im afraid consensus is impossible here. The longer the status quo of 1MB is keept, the less faith I have a consensus is possible here and any solution like XT is better than waiting for impossible to happen (consensus with those defending 1MB).
November 10, 2015, 05:17:10 AM
The block size needs increasing substantially over the next few years to be suitable for increased transactions. How will we achieve that is open to debate. It also depends on the state of the art computer technology.
I have no problem with that. So let's find a consensus between 1MB and 8MB (I'm fine with every value within those bounds the users select). If we see that this new limit is reached we decide again.
If you want an automatic increase to 8GB, just fork bitcoin! I will not follow your fork.
November 10, 2015, 05:01:12 AM
The block size needs increasing substantially over the next few years to be suitable for increased transactions. How will we achieve that is open to debate. It also depends on the state of the art computer technology.
Jump to: