Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 24. (Read 2032266 times)

There is avast difference to discussing XT vs "selling" XT to users.

Kind of hard to discuss it if reddit moderators keep deleting posts/threads related to XT and moving XT discussion to alt coin section of this forum.

People can only switch if there is enough discussion about XT.

They won't just wake up one day and go "i'll with go to xtnodes.com and download the latest client" without anyone previously mentioning it on a forum etc.

Ultimately users will choose what they want in the end.

All of this back and forth is drama and kiddy BS. Pick a stance and stick to it without the ad hominem or personal attacks (<----directed at those going out of their way to bash others).

another spam attack couldn't get the first big block ?

or is there a time constraint on when the first > 1 MB block can be created?

It feels to me like a major shift occurred today.  It was caused in part by Gavin and Mike completing the patch to support larger block sizes, but I think it was actually caused more so by a foolish move made on the battlefield-that-was-reddit today.  In an act of desperation, the mods at /r/bitcoin threw their swords.  

What do I mean by "throwing one's sword?"  I'll have to explain it with a story about my childhood…

...The town I grew up in (about an hour outside of Vancouver) seemed perfectly normal to me as a kid, but when I look back now, it was actually pretty rough.  It was home to hundreds of Hell's Angels and it served as a sort of distribution center in the drug trade.  

Anyways, there were lots of fights between groups of boys when I was growing up.  I was never really a part of it, but I was fascinated and paid attention to the dynamics of the process.  One strange behaviour I witnessed was that the last act of the losing faction of boys was always to throw their weapons.  It was such a stupid thing to do, because the baseball bat or hockey stick would rarely hit the intended target, and in the few times that it did, it would be travelling at such a reduced velocity that the impact imparted to the victim was superficial at best.  

And then the weaponless boys would get their butts kicked.

It turns out that this is a sort of a natural human reaction to severe stress.  As a last resort, we throw whatever we have left and hope for the best.  In the movies, it always works; in real life, the opposite is true.  

Of course the weapon of a mod is censorship.  Today was the day that the mods at /r/bitcoin threw their weapons.  

Just because someone makes a client (XT or original satoshi client) doesn't mean they make people choose to use that client.

If that were so then Satoshi himself had political influence thus negating your point entirely.

I don't see anything that XT is doing other than allowing people a choice to switch their client to one that supports bigger blocks (and a few other minor things).

Ultimately people choose what they want to use.

Political influence lol.

Sorry but I make my own choices by thinking with my brain, not who is in the lime light.

The first big block can only be mined in January of 2016 and after 2 weeks of >75% of xt mined blocks. At that point, we have already reached full consensus.

another spam attack couldn't get the first big block ?

or is there a time constraint on when the first > 1 MB block can be created?

If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.

Just because someone makes a client (XT or original satoshi client) doesn't mean they make people choose to use that client.

If that were so then Satoshi himself had political influence thus negating your point entirely.

I don't see anything that XT is doing other than allowing people a choice to switch their client to one that supports bigger blocks (and a few other minor things).

Ultimately people choose what they want to use.

Political influence lol.

Sorry but I make my own choices by thinking with my brain, not who is in the lime light.

I have been thinking about the mail from the nickname Satoshi Nakamoto, whoerever it is. His argument is not about the technical side of the debate but about politics and long term future.

I think people need to talk less about the technical implications and more about the political implications of this fork.
 
The argument of this guy is that if the XT fork is sucessful, that means that in the future someone with enough political influence can make a fork successful. That means that one days the President of the United States, who definitely has enough political influence, will be able to push a succesful fork. And we all know what that would mean: no more 21 million limit. We will be back to central banking.

The argument that the community will decide what is its best interest is invalid. Aristotle already knew that democracy turn into demagogy. And history and economics show that the outcomes of democratic process don't align with the best interest of the voters.

Basically the problem is that: by forking we are choosing a democratic political process, and it's the very same process which lead to central banking and is currently unable to stop it.

I have been thinking about the mail from the nickname Satoshi Nakamoto, whoerever it is. His argument is not about the technical side of the debate but about politics and long term future.

I think people need to talk less about the technical implications and more about the political implications of this fork.
 
The argument of this guys is that is the XT fork is sucessful, that means that in the future someone with enough political influence can make a fork successful. That means that one days the President of the United States, who definitely has enough political influence, will be able to push a succesful fork. And we all know what that would mean: no more 21 million limit. We will be back to central banking.

The argument that the community will decide what is its best interest is invalid. Aristotle already knows that democracy turn into demagogy. And history and economics shows that democracy choices don't align with the best interest of the voters.

Basically the problem is that: by forking we are choosing a democratic political process, and it's the very same process which lead to central banking and is currently unable to stop it.

If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.

Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin.

The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.

Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.

I think it is not correct because gold is always best investment and it will always grow for longer time. So it is not a good way to compare gold and bitcoin.

XT is currently only a voting mechanism, like a poll here. Maybe in half a year we will see the first bigblock, maybe in a year. Gavin has been extra patient.

You know iCE, I also am concerned by the idea of a hostile fork, but reading your propaganda it just dawned on me that the only hostilities are coming from people like you. Everyone of any worth agrees we need to increase the block size, it's just there is a hostile minority who feel they are in power who are wanting to pick a fight.

Accommodating bigger blocks over a 12 month period given Bitcoin's exponential growth is not a hostile act, it's not rushing in a controversial change, it's a practical prudent approach.

You are part of the minority who are making it controversial and calling it hostile. I just don't see why you're opposed to letting Bitcoin grow free of manipulation and control.

Zimbabwe and Weimar printed paper out of nothing. This is overwhelmingly not the case in a property backed money environment. You have to deliver capital to the bank to get credit (money). That's the way how money is created and backed in a capitalist environment. Money was never fully linked with metal. Everything started with the first debt, which was the debt to the state/warlords, the tribute: grain, or metal for the Organized Violence to organize violence. There is no economy beyond an environment of organized violence. Beyond that environment is self-sufficiency.

No, fiat means that the money manager states, through a law, that the paper money backed by gold, is just as good as gold, and it comes when the backing and therefore the redeemability is questioned by the market.

Anyway, my post here was to illustrate that bitcoins must be held directly with the public to the largest extent technically possible, to avoid that surrogates appear, and also galloping debt.

EDIT: (The real meaning of fiat after a while becomes nonsensical, when a gold mark is worth a million paper marks, no one believes in it, and they just forget that at some point, a paper mark was in fact worth a gold mark. So when the redeemability is removed, fiat is "out of nothing" as you say. But gold and bitcoin is also out of nothing. They are sound because there is no money manager).