Anyone knows where we are supposed to post the BitcoinXT threads ? last time I posted on Bitcoin Discussion it got moved after couple of hours i guess and they got moved to Altcoin section however I see shitload of posts on Bitcoin discussion right now so .. what's up?
Are they censorship on Reddit only or here aswell ?
Topic: Is Bitcointalk a place of free and open discussion? - page 2. (Read 7778 times)
If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.
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).
What is stopping you from making a Reddit for XT? What ENTITLES XT to a right to be in the forum main sections? Like I said earlier, this is nothing more than an altcoin namejacking Bitcoin. Infinitecoin had the SAME issue with "Infinitecoin 2" which was later renamed Colossuscoin after public protest. The developer of that coin tried to use many of the same arguments I see here for XT. This is a game they have played before in the altcoin scene, now they have just decided to use this strategy on a bigger target. This whole idea is carefully crafted to leverage peoples ignorance of the protocol to divide the community in the hopes they will find enough ignorant people to sign on with them thinking they are supporting something genuine. Don't be fooled, this is an attack on Bitcoin.
The name of the game is a death of a thousand cuts. If it works once they will do it over and over and over until the community is completely divided and ripping the infrastructure apart. Real distributed consensus comes down to who has the better code, not if they have access to all the main information outlets. If XT is really better, it doesn't matter one bit where people post about it. THAT is how real open source works, not these namejacking political semantics games we are seeing used to try to leverage the launch of XT.
As far as the bolded part, you never engage in that kind of behavior now do you?
Agree to this.
Remember Panda coin? At some point was there 3 Panda coins. The first one. Then one made to battle that scammer-pump-n-dumper who made the first one (forgot his name, think he was asian). Then a third one to replace the two previous coin. Nobody know which Panda coins they where holding or mining....... at the exchange they where called PND, PAN and PANDA.
The moral of this.... panda completly died because of this confussion. A am affraid the same could happen with bitcoin. Would proberly not be long before some make a bitcoin XT2 or Bitcoin TX. Then will the confusion be complete, nobody would know which shit coin they just bought on local bitcoins.
Namejacking, that is exactly the word I was looking for (thanks tech-guy). They should have called it LargerBlockCoin (LBC) instead, at least that would have been easy to understand.
If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.
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).
What is stopping you from making a Reddit for XT? What ENTITLES XT to a right to be in the forum main sections? Like I said earlier, this is nothing more than an altcoin namejacking Bitcoin. Infinitecoin had the SAME issue with "Infinitecoin 2" which was later renamed Colossuscoin after public protest. The developer of that coin tried to use many of the same arguments I see here for XT. This is a game they have played before in the altcoin scene, now they have just decided to use this strategy on a bigger target. This whole idea is carefully crafted to leverage peoples ignorance of the protocol to divide the community in the hopes they will find enough ignorant people to sign on with them thinking they are supporting something genuine. Don't be fooled, this is an attack on Bitcoin.
The name of the game is a death of a thousand cuts. If it works once they will do it over and over and over until the community is completely divided and ripping the infrastructure apart. Real distributed consensus comes down to who has the better code, not if they have access to all the main information outlets. If XT is really better, it doesn't matter one bit where people post about it. THAT is how real open source works, not these namejacking political semantics games we are seeing used to try to leverage the launch of XT.
As far as the bolded part, you never engage in that kind of behavior now do you?
Currently (as of right now) XT is Bitcoin as it operates seamlessly with the bitcoin network.
No, the XT is pretending to be Bitcoin, but it's not.It is extending the current protocol in its consensus-enforcing part. Because it says: after 2016-something if 75% miners have done something, we can produce larger blocks. It implicitly states it can do something the current protocol doesn't allow, under certain conditions that you call 'consensus' (which is far from the real consensus). It can disguise as an ordinary client in the meantime, doesn't matter, it won't make it Bitcoin.
It's not like protocol will be changed only if 75% miners agree, it's already changed by adding this very condition. Protocol amounts to all consensus-critical rules, implicit and explicit, that are written in the software.
It's not like protocol will be changed only if 75% miners agree, it's already changed by adding this very condition. Protocol amounts to all consensus-critical rules, implicit and explicit, that are written in the software.
Being moderated on a private forum is NOTHING like being suppressed by censorship. What a nasty, horrible lie! Why don't you just track down some Chinese dissidents and shit on their faces? Either way the [trivializing, disrespectful] substance is the same. 
What you gloss over as "imprecise use of the word censorship" isn't accidental or mere ignorance. It is a calculated attack on the mods' integrity (IE shaming), and a purposeful re-framing so as to paint them as victimizing brave supporters of free speech ("zomg it's a human right!!!").
As to their (and now your) "concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating" let us note that alt-coin discussion is explicitly subject to certain time/place restrictions by the forum/sub rules. If you break those rules, expect to be moderated. If you persist despite moderation, expect to be banned. Duh! This isn't hard, except when thou doth protest too much.
It is not honest to, by visitation and participation, implicitly agree with the existing moderation rules and their arbiters (the mods), but then act SHOCKED when playing the Censorship Card fails to win a dispute over/with them.
What you gloss over as "imprecise use of the word censorship" isn't accidental or mere ignorance. It is a calculated attack on the mods' integrity (IE shaming), and a purposeful re-framing so as to paint them as victimizing brave supporters of free speech ("zomg it's a human right!!!").
As to their (and now your) "concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating" let us note that alt-coin discussion is explicitly subject to certain time/place restrictions by the forum/sub rules. If you break those rules, expect to be moderated. If you persist despite moderation, expect to be banned. Duh! This isn't hard, except when thou doth protest too much.
It is not honest to, by visitation and participation, implicitly agree with the existing moderation rules and their arbiters (the mods), but then act SHOCKED when playing the Censorship Card fails to win a dispute over/with them.
lol how is it pretending to be Bitcoin?
Does xt pretend to send transactions on the network seamlessly now or does it actually do it?
Selective censorship is where the claim is xt is an alt coin but side chains also being an alt coin are allowed to be discussed.
Currently (as of right now) XT is Bitcoin as it operates seamlessly with the bitcoin network.
No, the XT is pretending to be Bitcoin, but it's not.It is extending the current protocol in its consensus-enforcing part. Because it says: after 2016-something if 75% miners have done something, we can produce larger blocks. It implicitly states it can do something the current protocol doesn't allow, under certain conditions that you call 'consensus' (which is far from the real consensus). It can disguise as an ordinary client in the meantime, doesn't matter, it won't make it Bitcoin.
It's not like protocol will be changed only if 75% miners agree, it's already changed by adding this very condition. Protocol amounts to all consensus-critical rules, implicit and explicit, that are written in the software.
It's not like protocol will be changed only if 75% miners agree, it's already changed by adding this very condition. Protocol amounts to all consensus-critical rules, implicit and explicit, that are written in the software.
Being moderated on a private forum is NOTHING like being suppressed by censorship. What a nasty, horrible lie! Why don't you just track down some Chinese dissidents and shit on their faces? Either way the [trivializing, disrespectful] substance is the same.
What you gloss over as "imprecise use of the word censorship" isn't accidental or mere ignorance. It is a calculated attack on the mods' integrity (IE shaming), and a purposeful re-framing so as to paint them as victimizing brave supporters of free speech ("zomg it's a human right!!!").
As to their (and now your) "concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating" let us note that alt-coin discussion is explicitly subject to certain time/place restrictions by the forum/sub rules. If you break those rules, expect to be moderated. If you persist despite moderation, expect to be banned. Duh! This isn't hard, except when thou doth protest too much.
It is not honest to, by visitation and participation, implicitly agree with the existing moderation rules and their arbiters (the mods), but then act SHOCKED when playing the Censorship Card fails to win a dispute over/with them.
What you gloss over as "imprecise use of the word censorship" isn't accidental or mere ignorance. It is a calculated attack on the mods' integrity (IE shaming), and a purposeful re-framing so as to paint them as victimizing brave supporters of free speech ("zomg it's a human right!!!").
As to their (and now your) "concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating" let us note that alt-coin discussion is explicitly subject to certain time/place restrictions by the forum/sub rules. If you break those rules, expect to be moderated. If you persist despite moderation, expect to be banned. Duh! This isn't hard, except when thou doth protest too much.
It is not honest to, by visitation and participation, implicitly agree with the existing moderation rules and their arbiters (the mods), but then act SHOCKED when playing the Censorship Card fails to win a dispute over/with them.
You can discuss proposals to change the Bitcoin main chain, but a forked chain that is not also the main chain is an altchain and not truly Bitcoin.
[–]theymos -1 points 4 days ago
Discussion of hardforks is not silenced. That's why a possible hardfork has been discussed ad nauseam on /r/Bitcoin for the past few months. XT-specific submissions are removed because XT is not Bitcoin.
permalinksavecontextfull comments (189)reportgive gold
Um did he just contradict himself?
Hardforks are not silenced yet XT is a hard-fork implementation of bitcoin when certain conditions are met. Some time down the road.
Therefore XT should not be silenced.
Currently (as of right now) XT is Bitcoin as it operates seamlessly with the bitcoin network.
I love the logic fails even by Theymos.
Sidechains, blockstream, and lightning network are not bitcoin yet they are allowed to be discussed on reddit/r/bitcoin
Is this a case of selective censorship?
found this and thought it was funny:
You made my day !
If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.
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).
This is of course assuming that ZERO merchants choose to accept XT fork coins.
That has yet to be seen. No one knows that.
Should be interesting to see what exchanges/businesses do when some accept XT and some dont (assuming that scenario plays out).
Actually this won't happen. Honestly, it isn't that hard to persuade someone to switch since they don't know all the details. It is much easier if other factors are involved such as money.That has yet to be seen. No one knows that.
Should be interesting to see what exchanges/businesses do when some accept XT and some dont (assuming that scenario plays out).
While XT will definitely have more than zero merchants, it will do exactly what theymos stated. It will cause a noticeable or even significant network split which is a horrible possibility.
do exactly what?
Didn't theymos say that:
Quote
This wouldn't actually last for long in the scenario where 75% of miners switch but no big economic actors do because the miners who switched will switch back very soon after they realize that they're mining coins that no one will accept.
In that scenario he says it clear as day "no big economic actors" switch over to XT but 75% of miners do.
Not sure what you are addressing in response to my post in response to theymos' post.
Time will tell. This is why bitcoin is exciting...we are headed into uncharted waters.
XT will definitely have more than zero merchants
Who will be the first merchant to accept XT? It's not a safe move, so any business with fiduciary responsibilities must steer clear of such an imprudent initial move.
Maybe Hearn will start some XT Alliance, a kind of suicide pact so Gavincoiners can share the risk? That's still inadvisable:
Quote
Strength in numbers doesn't help the XT dead-enders because the more of a juicy target they present, the more incentive for this to happen:
Quote
This is of course assuming that ZERO merchants choose to accept XT fork coins.
That has yet to be seen. No one knows that.
Should be interesting to see what exchanges/businesses do when some accept XT and some dont (assuming that scenario plays out).
Actually this won't happen. Honestly, it isn't that hard to persuade someone to switch since they don't know all the details. It is much easier if other factors are involved such as money.That has yet to be seen. No one knows that.
Should be interesting to see what exchanges/businesses do when some accept XT and some dont (assuming that scenario plays out).
While XT will definitely have more than zero merchants, it will do exactly what theymos stated. It will cause a noticeable or even significant network split which is a horrible possibility.
This is what I was referring to:
Quote
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.
Thank you for introducing me to his writings, he's hilarious!
What makes you think merchants won't switch to xt if the majority of miners mine on xt and not on core?
Would it not be in the merchant's best interest to accept coins on the chain that is more time efficient?
Coins being sent on the old chain would be super slow. Can't see why merchants would not switch of the majority of miners processing transactions moved to xt.
Would it not be in the merchant's best interest to accept coins on the chain that is more time efficient?
Coins being sent on the old chain would be super slow. Can't see why merchants would not switch of the majority of miners processing transactions moved to xt.
A chain with fewer miners is not more efficient. It is more secure, though there would be very few things that could attack even 25% of the network's hashing power.
Blocks would be slower (25 minutes on average instead of 10), but this would only last for a few weeks until the difficulty goes down. Even today it's common for blocks to take 25-60 minutes, so this wouldn't be Earth-shattering.
This wouldn't actually last for long in the scenario where 75% of miners switch but no big economic actors do because the miners who switched will switch back very soon after they realize that they're mining coins that no one will accept.
This is of course assuming that ZERO merchants choose to accept XT fork coins.
That has yet to be seen. No one knows that.
Should be interesting to see what exchanges/businesses do when some accept XT and some dont (assuming that scenario plays out).
Do vs don't (ulitmately) accept isn't nearly as important as the order/magnitude in which acceptance begins to occur. Chickens like you, who are only willing to accept XT *AFTER* others have stuck out their necks, don't matter.
Only the brave souls who are willing (at great risk) to be first to defect from Bitcoin's economic majority matter.
Why? Because if there are no (or insufficient) first defectors, the second and later waves remain moot.
Please review this material and reexamine your assumptions.
Let's address some of the more common pseudo-arguments raised by the very stupid people that like the Gavin scamcoin proposal
HAHAHA Mircea Popescu , It has been a long time since that piece of shit go MIA.
What makes you think merchants won't switch to xt if the majority of miners mine on xt and not on core?
Would it not be in the merchant's best interest to accept coins on the chain that is more time efficient?
Coins being sent on the old chain would be super slow. Can't see why merchants would not switch of the majority of miners processing transactions moved to xt.
Would it not be in the merchant's best interest to accept coins on the chain that is more time efficient?
Coins being sent on the old chain would be super slow. Can't see why merchants would not switch of the majority of miners processing transactions moved to xt.
A chain with fewer miners is not more efficient. It is more secure, though there would be very few things that could attack even 25% of the network's hashing power.
Blocks would be slower (25 minutes on average instead of 10), but this would only last for a few weeks until the difficulty goes down. Even today it's common for blocks to take 25-60 minutes, so this wouldn't be Earth-shattering.
This wouldn't actually last for long in the scenario where 75% of miners switch but no big economic actors do because the miners who switched will switch back very soon after they realize that they're mining coins that no one will accept.
This is of course assuming that ZERO merchants choose to accept XT fork coins.
That has yet to be seen. No one knows that.
Should be interesting to see what exchanges/businesses do when some accept XT and some dont (assuming that scenario plays out).
Do vs don't (ulitmately) accept isn't nearly as important as the order/magnitude in which acceptance begins to occur. Chickens like you, who are only willing to accept XT *AFTER* others have stuck out their necks, don't matter.
Only the brave souls who are willing (at great risk) to be first to defect from Bitcoin's economic majority matter.
Why? Because if there are no (or insufficient) first defectors, the second and later waves remain moot.
Please review this material and reexamine your assumptions.
Let's address some of the more common pseudo-arguments raised by the very stupid people that like the Gavin scamcoin proposal
Most people know I am not a fan of how Theymos handles some things around here, so I have no reason to kiss his ass... that being said discussion of Bitcoin XT belongs in the altcoin section. It has its own blockchain, therefore it is not Bitcoin, no matter how much it is based on Bitcoin. If people start using XT and it "becomes" Bitcoin, then the Bitcoin core will be the one relegated to the altcoin section.
Until that day happens shut your mouth and trade your little altcoins with people who care about it. People arguing XT should be allowed in all of the Bitcoin main sections and Reddits are basically just namejacking and using a combination of semantics and people's ignorance of the protocol to drive a wedge between the community. If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.
Until that day happens shut your mouth and trade your little altcoins with people who care about it. People arguing XT should be allowed in all of the Bitcoin main sections and Reddits are basically just namejacking and using a combination of semantics and people's ignorance of the protocol to drive a wedge between the community. If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.
Hell has froze over, I agree with Techshare entirely in his post.
~BCX~
>private [citation needed]
Calling bitcointalk a private forum is disingenuous.
When asked if he is the owner of bitcointalk.org, theymos evasively stated that he runs it, refusing to claim ownership. Getting theymos to claim ownership of bitcointalk.org would go a long way in bolstering your (otherwise silly) claims.
As you've so wittily put it, " I'll wait..."
Calling bitcointalk a private forum is disingenuous.
When asked if he is the owner of bitcointalk.org, theymos evasively stated that he runs it, refusing to claim ownership. Getting theymos to claim ownership of bitcointalk.org would go a long way in bolstering your (otherwise silly) claims.
As you've so wittily put it, " I'll wait..."
Waiting...
Bitcointalk isn't public property, whether theymos claims ownership of it or not.
If you look it up at OED, the definition of "censorship" is not "moderator decisions with which HRH smoothie disagrees."
Is theymos chilling your free speech by means of making your fearful of the consequences of expressing your opinion?
No? Good. QED, that's not censorship.
Is theymos chilling your free speech by means of making your fearful of the consequences of expressing your opinion?
No? Good. QED, that's not censorship.
UR reasoning in a nutshell:
1. Cheese is food.
2. Steak is not cheese
∴ Steak is not food
"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."--wikipee
Works for me
Show me where theymos engaged in "suppression of speech." I'll wait...
Show me why theymos qualifies for inclusion in the group "governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions." I'll wait....
Moderating his privately owned forum does not count as "suppression." In fact, forcing theymos to moderate his own forum in a manner he did not choose would be suppression of his speech!
If you feel that bitcointalk is a private propaganda platform (rather than an open forum for public debate), I got nothing
OTOH, if you feel bitcointalk is a forum for the discussion of Bitcoin and its future, ghettoizing the only workable solution to the 2.7tps bottleneck to "altcoins" section is ...yeah, you got it: censorship.
Quote
You are very keen to justify your use of the emotionally overwrought term "censorship" rather than the proper term "moderation" because you have otherwise lost the debate, and must now appeal to emotion rather than facts and logic.
Moderation of a private forum doesn't meet your Wiki definition of censorship.
Moderation of a private forum doesn't meet your Wiki definition of censorship.
>private [citation needed]
Calling bitcointalk a private forum is disingenuous.
When asked if he is the owner of bitcointalk.org, theymos evasively stated that he runs it, refusing to claim ownership. Getting theymos to claim ownership of bitcointalk.org would go a long way in bolstering your (otherwise silly) claims.
Censorship takes many forms, my angry friend. A propaganda platform, masquerading as an open forum, is one of the most effective. Especially when said forum lays claims to such lofty Libertarian tenets as free speech, unhindered by central authorities.
Quote
Go back to reasoning in terms of cheese, you dozy twonk. 
How old R U? Lrn 2 manners, faggot.
Bitcointalk is not public property. You don't have free speech rights here, like you would in a public place.
Why is that simple concept so hard for you to understand? Are you refusing to understand it, to justify calling moderation an inflammatory term like "censorship?"
Maybe I need to dumb it WAAAAY down for you, and ELI5 in terms of cheese and food.
If you look it up at OED, the definition of "censorship" is not "moderator decisions with which HRH smoothie disagrees."
Is theymos chilling your free speech by means of making your fearful of the consequences of expressing your opinion?
No? Good. QED, that's not censorship.
Is theymos chilling your free speech by means of making your fearful of the consequences of expressing your opinion?
No? Good. QED, that's not censorship.
UR reasoning in a nutshell:
1. Cheese is food.
2. Steak is not cheese
∴ Steak is not food
"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."--wikipee
Works for me
Show me where theymos engaged in "suppression of speech." I'll wait...
Show me why theymos qualifies for inclusion in the group "governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions." I'll wait....
Moderating his privately owned forum does not count as "suppression." In fact, forcing theymos to moderate his own forum in a manner he did not choose would be suppression of his speech!
You are very keen to justify your use of the emotionally overwrought term "censorship" rather than the proper term "moderation" because you have otherwise lost the debate, and must now appeal to emotion rather than facts and logic.
Moderation of a private forum doesn't meet your Wiki definition of censorship. Go back to reasoning in terms of cheese, you dozy twonk.
found this and thought it was funny:
What the fuck are you on about?
Jump to: