Topic: Is Bitcointalk a place of free and open discussion? - page 3. (Read 7767 times)

LOL, must suck that you dont have authority huh?

Now you can kiss my ass instead of Theymos's, i might change my mind

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.

You can express your opinion (which is a speech act, and in which you disagree with theymos' moderation) without resorting to cheap theatrics.

The goal isn't to make you "give a shit" but rather to make the lurkers "understand what censorship means" (and doesn't mean).

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.   

Opinion != act

let alone drama queen act.

Oh noes IceBaby gonna make memes ...lol

Go right ahead see if I give a shit. 

http://www.onlinecollege.org/2009/07/05/25-shocking-facts-about-chinese-censorship/

smoothie, knock off your drama queen act.  Or I will make memes about your First World Censorship Problems.   

Gotta love the internet, calling anyone that point out our stupidity ... a troll.

Also a shill if they dont support what we believe.

Funny someone actually said I'm Gavin's alt acct.

Your post is a perfect example of what i mean by "full of retards". Meanwhile, Icebreaker is a known shill for HashFast fraud.

I partly agree but I think the retards are the trolls like you who cover the forum in all these shitposts and personal attacks. It has gotten to the point that the majority of members here have to stay anonymous to avoid receiving personal attacks from people like you. I honestly think there should be a huge crackdown on alt accounts. I also think that personal attacks and threats of violence should be removed from the forum too. The forum is a bit too liberal in this area, there needs to be some order if we actually want this to be a friendly Bitcoin community and not turn into something like hackforums. There are always going to be bad-apples who want to ruin it for others and they will succeed unless action is taken.

Retard, first let me fix those typos for you

Second there is a difference between forking the current blockchain and forking the original code to create a new blockchain.

Calling a fork of bitcoin blockchain an altcoin is stupid. Consensus of the bitcoin network isnt between bitcoin core devs, what are they? the fucking owners or what?

Consensus should be based on the network/community.

Hey idiot, if you prefer to the video atleast have a fucking understanding of what he said b4 jumping on the bandwagon to bash blindly.

Let me quote you what he said so you can fucking read over again:


This fucking block size debate has been going forever. Bitcoin core devs play games around all the bullshit they can come up with. Also bitcoin miners MUST follow the economic majority unless they're stupid. They're business to make profits, they dont care about the growth of bitcoin community. So why the fuck do we have to beg them ?

This community/forum is now just full of retards. Most of old members are gone, all new members are altcoin junkies.

Last time I checked, there was Bitcoin-scrypt which was almost identical from Bitcoin aside that it used scrypt instead of SHA. Does my implication not apply then?
Stop posting from shills.

Well you could say that it happened on reddit, however theymos did not do it without the right reasons (as mentioned in post).


It is better to say miners as they provide hash power which can't be properly measured anyways. I would say all of the above. Let me quote theymos on this one as I fully agree with him on the following:

---

---

Update:
Insults will not be tolerated in any way, and you're now a confirmed shill. Welcome to the ignore list meono.

Oh jesus, how dumb can you get? Altcoin is just a fork from Bitcoin without consensus now?


Convincing huh? you can only try to convince a bunch of kids for so long. They're running circle and refuse to compromise. Guess what the economic majority want that feature and IT WILL BE DONE if bitcoin core devs decide to play hostage game.

@LaudaM define "consensus" in your opinion

is it based on nodes?

hash power?

majority of economical backers (businesses and exchanges)?

all 3 above?

censorship is censorship at least consider that it is being done on reddit.  

thanks for the link...watching it now.  


...

interesting. Did not know that video was made. Will take it and run with it.

Thanks

I was talking solely about Bitcointalk, not reddit. I can't find the proper source as they video was mentioned back a few months in some of the discussions. However, I found something similar.
Here it is. Ignore the longest chain.  

Please reference your claims with URLs. BOLDED.

I have seen no such statements made by Hearn. Where exactly did he say this?

Please provide this.

Thanks

BTW deleting Reddit posts is censorship in my view.

You forgot a important part in your post. Hearn does not care about consensus and would proceed with XT with lower percentage, thus causing a split (i.e. not a proper hard fork as theymos suggested).                                Also you forgot to mention the implementation of a 'dictator' that could overrule consensus and if people don't agree they could start a new fork as Hearn suggested. 
Moving threads to the appropriate section =/= censoring.

Having the network (community) ultimately decide if consensus of a hard fork is reached is dangerous? really? If the majority chooses to use XT (or whatever hard fork version) then how is that bad?

If consensus is reached then that means the majority of nodes in the original bitcoin network agree to the changes. If they don't XT will just die.

What's the problem?

No need to censor posts on discussion of a possible fork (not that it will happen).

Why not just allow discussion of a hard fork (which may or may not happen) continue?

It is bitcoin with support for larger blocks if CONSENSUS of the network is achieved.

How is it not a candidate for actual bitcoin discussion when the code is supportive of the current bitcoin network going forward?

If people choose not to use it then fine. But censoring discussion about a fork (which the network will either accept or reject) is uncalled for.

It isn't like we are talking about a complete restart of the network like Litecoin or whatever.


CORRECTION: Supporting XT is ONE way of supporting bigger blocks.

Don't get it twisted.

Bitcoin XT forwards both double spend attack transactions.  If bitcoin-core receives a transaction and another one that conflicts with this transaction,  core will ignore the second one and not forward it.  Now, Bitcoin XT will forward both such transactions..  ergo both double spend attack transactions.

You may want to send a conflicting transaction which wouldn't be really double spend.  In the case you might want to increase the fee for a transaction that is not getting confirmed.

I wonder whether most nodes could cope with 20 MB blocks.  Whereas computing space storage and speed might go up exponentially, home bandwidth rates have faced stagnation and bandwidth caps.  Perhaps the majority of users will use light clients anyway.  We lack the hard data to know what would happen, which makes this XT testnet a good thing.  We only know the parameters in bitcoin-core worked out even in face of a transaction flood attack.  If you have more demanding bandwidth, you may get fewer nodes, we cannot say for certain how many unfortunately.

There is another side of matters that are not technical, yet I think they are even more important in the XT vs. core debate.  If Gavin gets his way here against the majority of developers and if I were king, I would definitely feel I could coerce him into doing things that would be good for the bankers that I serve but bad for bitcoin.  Now his life would become very difficult for him at this point.  It sets a very dangerous precedent.

sdp

It is not. Anything without proper consensus, i.e. that is threatening to split up the network is not a proper hard fork and should never be considered as one. Hearn is just a person who likes the idea of dictatorship. Instead of actually convincing people the proper way, they start an attack on theymos for doing literally not wrong. This is exactly what altcoins have been doing. They fork from Bitcoin without consensus and thus create a separate network/currency.

---

---

Supporting bigger blocks is not the same as supporting XT.