why xt? because science. lol wtf
Topic: Gregory Maxwell threatens to sell his bitcoins and find other things to work on (Read 7967 times)
September 19, 2015, 03:16:36 AM
why xt? because science. lol wtf
September 15, 2015, 07:14:14 AM
why xt? because science. lol wtf
June 30, 2015, 07:25:40 PM
well all days we see several people complaint because too many pression on them to do what they got paid to do soo before say get out think we are asking them to keep improve bitcoin ,there isnt a limit on it.
June 30, 2015, 11:07:15 AM
Defines failure then says he doesn't believe his definition of failure. I chuckled a little.
June 30, 2015, 10:26:03 AM
June 30, 2015, 10:15:04 AM
June 30, 2015, 07:59:04 AM
You prove via carbon dating that dinosaurs roamed the planet 65+ million of years ago.
Then someone comes and puts it in the mind of people that dinosaurs used to roam the planet together with humans 8000 years ago.
The mayority then decides to believe in the dino + human coexisting theory as it is to difficult for people to wrap their mind along a more complex scientific explanation.
Personally I would rather take a bullet than living in a world as described above.
And this world that is right now being forced down upon us is called XT and it is better because it is bigger....yeah....
Then someone comes and puts it in the mind of people that dinosaurs used to roam the planet together with humans 8000 years ago.
The mayority then decides to believe in the dino + human coexisting theory as it is to difficult for people to wrap their mind along a more complex scientific explanation.
Personally I would rather take a bullet than living in a world as described above.
And this world that is right now being forced down upon us is called XT and it is better because it is bigger....yeah....
I feel exactly the same way about people arguing for a smaller network. I don't know how people can even begin to think in such away unless they are greedy or selfish, or have spent too much time listening to people who are greedy and selfish. Why would a majority of people support a network that only benefits a small minority? If blocks become full on a regular basis, only the transactions with the highest fees will be processed in a reasonable time. Unless you want Bitcoin to become an elitist niche for the wealthy, Bitcoin has to accommodate more users.
Some claim the 1MB blocksize isn't a problem because people can go off-chain and trust a third party with their money, but that defeats the whole point of using crypto. Why would someone settle for a second tier, centralised service that introduces risk, when they could simply use another coin that doesn't have an arbitrary 1MB cap? If a majority of users start to go elsewhere, miners will likely follow. If you artificially limit the number of transactions you can process, you are in turn also artificially limiting the mining revenue you could be collecting to incentivise securing the network. There is no gain whatsoever in artificially limiting our target audience.
People won't support a network that doesn't support them.
June 30, 2015, 07:46:09 AM
Then someone comes and puts it in the mind of people that dinosaurs used to roam the planet together with humans 8000 years ago.
...and then all the scientists quit, because, apparently, science has failed
June 30, 2015, 07:42:48 AM
Lets make this one particular thing very clear: maxwell's life, maxwell's rules.
He is under no obligation to work and research and donate his time and energy in this project as a compulsion. He can leave interest and drop from the project any time he wishes, no contracts. He wont sell his bitcoins just like how bitcoins won't get centralised. If they do, even i will sell em off.
He is under no obligation to work and research and donate his time and energy in this project as a compulsion. He can leave interest and drop from the project any time he wishes, no contracts. He wont sell his bitcoins just like how bitcoins won't get centralised. If they do, even i will sell em off.
June 30, 2015, 07:19:08 AM
I think I found a perfect metaphor:
--
Imagine you're running a marathon and somebody passes you by.
Instead of running harder, you just drop to the ground and start crying:
"This is unfair! I will not be participating in this marathon anymore, because if it requires constant running then it's already a failure."
--
Do you see now how ridiculous your rant sounds?
--
Imagine you're running a marathon and somebody passes you by.
Instead of running harder, you just drop to the ground and start crying:
"This is unfair! I will not be participating in this marathon anymore, because if it requires constant running then it's already a failure."
--
Do you see now how ridiculous your rant sounds?
That is a very very wrong metaphor. It would be more like:
You prove via carbon dating that dinosaurs roamed the planet 65+ million of years ago.
Then someone comes and puts it in the mind of people that dinosaurs used to roam the planet together with humans 8000 years ago.
The mayority then decides to believe in the dino + human coexisting theory as it is to difficult for people to wrap their mind along a more complex scientific explanation.
Personally I would rather take a bullet than living in a world as described above.
And this world that is right now being forced down upon us is called XT and it is better because it is bigger....yeah....
June 30, 2015, 02:33:08 AM
I think I found a perfect metaphor:
--
Imagine you're running a marathon and somebody passes you by.
Instead of running harder, you just drop to the ground and start crying:
"This is unfair! I will not be participating in this marathon anymore, because if it requires constant running then it's already a failure."
--
Do you see now how ridiculous your rant sounds?
--
Imagine you're running a marathon and somebody passes you by.
Instead of running harder, you just drop to the ground and start crying:
"This is unfair! I will not be participating in this marathon anymore, because if it requires constant running then it's already a failure."
--
Do you see now how ridiculous your rant sounds?
June 29, 2015, 05:59:33 PM
My response was that I don't care to win people over, that if Bitcoin's survival depends on constantly making rescuing it with a political sales pitch and a mass market PR campaign then I think that would mean that its already a failure.
What a childish rant and a weird definition of failure.
How else did you think this world operates?
Did you think the masses will forever listen to whatever wisdom a few (more or less randomly) chosen ones will lay upon them? Follow you wherever you go unconditionally?
Just because you all are somehow special and irreplaceable and were sent to this Earth to rule Bitcoin forever?
And now you're holding a grudge because people are not blindly listening to you anymore, while you didn't even bother making an effort to talk to them in the first place?
Jeez... The masses will abandon your elitist and cultish little circle at the drop of a hat and switch to whatever caters to their needs the most. Doesn't mean anything has failed...
So strange to hear these rants from grown-ups...
June 29, 2015, 04:59:12 PM
well as longs as they keep improvement bitcoin i dont mind at all some persons relax and spoke a bit about it ,there is a huge pression on these guys always seeking for the best to do
June 26, 2015, 08:14:33 AM
Some users just tend to spin things using sensational titles. Some days, I just shake my head beacuse it's like reading The Daily Mail.
June 26, 2015, 05:46:12 AM
Jon Matonis made an interesting video today on the block size matter. He basically says that if Hearn and Gavin are successful in their attempts to hard fork using Bitcoin XT and without core developer consenus, we're all screwed.
Strong opinions are presented in the following video. Viewer discretion is advised: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwO5u6OVaaA
Strong opinions are presented in the following video. Viewer discretion is advised: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwO5u6OVaaA
Thanks for sharing
June 25, 2015, 08:29:15 PM
Jon Matonis made an interesting video today on the block size matter. He basically says that if Hearn and Gavin are successful in their attempts to hard fork using Bitcoin XT and without core developer consenus, we're all screwed.
Strong opinions are presented in the following video. Viewer discretion is advised: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwO5u6OVaaA
Strong opinions are presented in the following video. Viewer discretion is advised: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwO5u6OVaaA
June 25, 2015, 06:44:11 PM
well all persons has a bad day soo maybe this gregory had one as well too many pression ,i would like to be him these days communitty asking several in a short time.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
June 25, 2015, 07:09:52 AM
Egads, what a boggling thread. (I will not be sending a christmas card to the mean person that sent me this link! ).
Go read the context. Someone was asking me why I'm not doing the some PR blitz to influence people's thinking. My response was that I don't care to win people over, that if Bitcoin's survival depends on constantly making rescuing it with a political sales pitch and a mass market PR campaign then I think that would mean that its already a failure. I don't actually believe it is a failure but I'm not frightened of it becoming one, though I'd think it would be a bit sad to have wasted many years chasing a windmill and for the world to lose this opportunity; but that said, I can just leave if it goes the highly centralized route, and go work on something that still has a prospect of success-- there are just too many important things that need to be done. I don't think there is anything "threatening" or anything about that.
I care a lot about defending, protecting, and nurturing the system, but not so much that I feel compelled to go around trying to reprogram people to get my way. To even admit that doing so would be possible is an admission that the system cannot work. So I'm happy to continue to just communicate frankly in the forums and means that I normally communicate in and see how the experiment pans out.
).Go read the context. Someone was asking me why I'm not doing the some PR blitz to influence people's thinking. My response was that I don't care to win people over, that if Bitcoin's survival depends on constantly making rescuing it with a political sales pitch and a mass market PR campaign then I think that would mean that its already a failure. I don't actually believe it is a failure but I'm not frightened of it becoming one, though I'd think it would be a bit sad to have wasted many years chasing a windmill and for the world to lose this opportunity; but that said, I can just leave if it goes the highly centralized route, and go work on something that still has a prospect of success-- there are just too many important things that need to be done. I don't think there is anything "threatening" or anything about that.
I care a lot about defending, protecting, and nurturing the system, but not so much that I feel compelled to go around trying to reprogram people to get my way. To even admit that doing so would be possible is an admission that the system cannot work. So I'm happy to continue to just communicate frankly in the forums and means that I normally communicate in and see how the experiment pans out.
Thanks Greg. There's a tremendous amount of noise in the air.
I personally really appreciate everything you've done for Bitcoin.
Perhaps you can clarify the direction you'd like Bitcoin to go in concrete terms.
I read on coindesk that blockstream recently released some open source sidechain code.
Not to sound demanding, but the questions I would like to ask are as follows:
1. What do you see are the next steps to this being used widely? And what would the timeframe be on that?
2. Is this one of THE key things we need, or are there others ingredients
required to scale Bitcoin? If the latter, what would they be?
3. Is there any conflict of interest with blockstream as far as it being a for-profit company and doing what is in the best interests of Bitcoin?
4. Are you categorically against raising the block size as a stop gap measure to ensure capacity doesn't run out before other plans (sidechains etc) are implemented?
thanks, Jonald
June 25, 2015, 06:10:40 AM
Egads, what a boggling thread. (I will not be sending a christmas card to the mean person that sent me this link! ).
Go read the context. Someone was asking me why I'm not doing the some PR blitz to influence people's thinking. My response was that I don't care to win people over, that if Bitcoin's survival depends on constantly making rescuing it with a political sales pitch and a mass market PR campaign then I think that would mean that its already a failure. I don't actually believe it is a failure but I'm not frightened of it becoming one, though I'd think it would be a bit sad to have wasted many years chasing a windmill and for the world to lose this opportunity; but that said, I can just leave if it goes the highly centralized route, and go work on something that still has a prospect of success-- there are just too many important things that need to be done. I don't think there is anything "threatening" or anything about that.
I care a lot about defending, protecting, and nurturing the system, but not so much that I feel compelled to go around trying to reprogram people to get my way. To even admit that doing so would be possible is an admission that the system cannot work. So I'm happy to continue to just communicate frankly in the forums and means that I normally communicate in and see how the experiment pans out.
).Go read the context. Someone was asking me why I'm not doing the some PR blitz to influence people's thinking. My response was that I don't care to win people over, that if Bitcoin's survival depends on constantly making rescuing it with a political sales pitch and a mass market PR campaign then I think that would mean that its already a failure. I don't actually believe it is a failure but I'm not frightened of it becoming one, though I'd think it would be a bit sad to have wasted many years chasing a windmill and for the world to lose this opportunity; but that said, I can just leave if it goes the highly centralized route, and go work on something that still has a prospect of success-- there are just too many important things that need to be done. I don't think there is anything "threatening" or anything about that.
I care a lot about defending, protecting, and nurturing the system, but not so much that I feel compelled to go around trying to reprogram people to get my way. To even admit that doing so would be possible is an admission that the system cannot work. So I'm happy to continue to just communicate frankly in the forums and means that I normally communicate in and see how the experiment pans out.
Thanx for chiming in. Your response have been added in the OP.
June 25, 2015, 05:45:52 AM
Egads, what a boggling thread. (I will not be sending a christmas card to the mean person that sent me this link! ).
Go read the context. Someone was asking me why I'm not doing the some PR blitz to influence people's thinking. My response was that I don't care to win people over, that if Bitcoin's survival depends on constantly making rescuing it with a political sales pitch and a mass market PR campaign then I think that would mean that its already a failure. I don't actually believe it is a failure but I'm not frightened of it becoming one, though I'd think it would be a bit sad to have wasted many years chasing a windmill and for the world to lose this opportunity; but that said, I can just leave if it goes the highly centralized route, and go work on something that still has a prospect of success-- there are just too many important things that need to be done. I don't think there is anything "threatening" or anything about that.
I care a lot about defending, protecting, and nurturing the system, but not so much that I feel compelled to go around trying to reprogram people to get my way. To even admit that doing so would be possible is an admission that the system cannot work. So I'm happy to continue to just communicate frankly in the forums and means that I normally communicate in and see how the experiment pans out.
).Go read the context. Someone was asking me why I'm not doing the some PR blitz to influence people's thinking. My response was that I don't care to win people over, that if Bitcoin's survival depends on constantly making rescuing it with a political sales pitch and a mass market PR campaign then I think that would mean that its already a failure. I don't actually believe it is a failure but I'm not frightened of it becoming one, though I'd think it would be a bit sad to have wasted many years chasing a windmill and for the world to lose this opportunity; but that said, I can just leave if it goes the highly centralized route, and go work on something that still has a prospect of success-- there are just too many important things that need to be done. I don't think there is anything "threatening" or anything about that.
I care a lot about defending, protecting, and nurturing the system, but not so much that I feel compelled to go around trying to reprogram people to get my way. To even admit that doing so would be possible is an admission that the system cannot work. So I'm happy to continue to just communicate frankly in the forums and means that I normally communicate in and see how the experiment pans out.
As a small time web dev, I have a little suggestion for you, who will be leading the QT chain. blockchain.info has already said that they are supporting XT chain (Ref: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37y8wm/list_of_bitcoin_services_that_supportoppose/). Many of the web application do not run their own bitcoind and rely on blockchain.info API. So, if there is no blockchain.info API alternative to supprt QT, many web application will eventually end up supporting the XT chain, even if they did not want to. So, running a blockchain.info API alternative might be something QT devs may think of...
Jump to: