Topic: question (Read 7776 times)

I told the Gavinistas XT would get #R3KT like Stannis on the Blackwater, and that's exactly what happened.

Now they are reduced to Reddit-lawyering, in a desperate quest to find something theymos did wrong that they can tattle to the admins about.

Their petulant moaning and weepy lamentations are hilarious.   

Just thought I'd drop in and LOL because waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than 2 weeks have passed since this bold declaration and still no 20 MB blocks and Mike Hearn has ragequit.

I'm glad you saw past the initial question to the reason for the question. That is rare on forums. My question was based, as you surmised, on why are we defaulting to using these technologies when there are others that could yield a superior system to these broken technologies.

I was not aware of the history of Convergence. It was merely an attempt to say there are other, probably better, ways. If DNS is the sole requirement then surely Namecoin is a superior solution? The version 2 spec has the signatures required now.

No thanks

I hope XT won't see any consent at all and those two rogue devs can go look for another coin to toy with.

Exactly.  XT offers cheaper tx, but trustless fully contributing (access+verify+amplify) nodes only for the rich.

Bitcoin's tx are (slightly) more expensive, but it fits in a modest footprint attainable by Joe Sixcoins and his DSL in Florida/Africa/Venezuela.

In an emergency, Bitcoin's configuration maintains the fallback option of using hosts of last resort, located far out on the edges.  That keeps the system diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.

As its requirements rise, XT excludes more actual and potential full contributors, leaving it increasingly at the mercy of centralized data centers' good wishes and SLA fulfillment abilities.

Now, who would want to not kill Bitcoin at the moment (because messy Striesand/Hydra Effects), yet make sure it can be killed without having to root it out of every low-bandwidth data haven in every jungle/warehouse/basement/office/coffeeshop in the world?

The problem with your perspective is bitcoin needs new users to grow to a global system. You want to keep it a niche market forever? Because i can tell you new users will need to have good incentive to join.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

yes yes... no problem... no problem at all.... good then all the fuzz for nothing. Mike can compile the code, then must evertying be in order. Just go ahead at download the XT scam.

When I said I did not trust Mike Hearn I was mostly refering to his political motives. There is a hidden agenda behind all this. The sheeps are being manipulated, eventually will all of you be in under control of Mike Hearn through his hostile take over of our beloved bitcoin.

Incredible intelligence you displayed there.

This is like arguing with a dog why it should stop barking.

Let me quote you one of your "good guys":


Now go tell him to listen to his own words .

My time machine isn't working yet (ironically).  Code that hasn't yet been published can't be reviewed by end users.  However, it also can't be compiled and run by end users, so what is the problem?  When it's released, review it.  When it's reviewed, compile it.  When it's compiled, run it.  Sounds straightforward to me.

You should review the open source code that Mike Hearn hasn't submitted to git yet.

So review the open source code?

I don't trust this Mike Hearn guy. I am sure he has some kinda hidden agenda..... If I only knew what he is up to..... My scam-radar makes a huges read out when I type in his name...... The most talented scammers they set up for the long haul.... set up everything like they are going to help and play honest.... wait paitent untill the time is right..... and then BAM the scam goes live. Bottom like I dont trust him.

DNSSEC only does what it does. If you look at the details on the Convergence site, you'll see that Convergence is a network technology, whereas DNSSEC is just a nameserver technology. You can use DNSSEC as a part of Convergence.

Convergence involves a well known developer called Moxie Marlinspike (Whisper Systems, who develop TextSecure and RedPhone for the Android OS). I use an alternative Android app store called F-Droid (https://f-droid.org). It's all free & open source, with some affiliation to the Free Software Foundation. The developers of F-Droid build all the apps themselves from the source code provided by the developers. Moxie Marlinspike submitted TextSecure and RedPhone to be included in F-Droid. The F-Droid devs couldn't get the code to build. Moxie apparently showed no interest in resolving the issue, and so TextSecure and RedPhone never appeared in the F-Droid store. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'm not too sure about WhisperSystems or Moxie Marlinspike for the moment.

I agree on the wider point though; centralised systems on the internet have got to go, and the Certificate Authority system and the DNS system are the most egregious standouts. For years now, the tech media has been touting various potential "cyber-9/11" scenarios, and those two systems are prime targets.

You're not going to figure it out with that line of reasoning. It's better to concentrate on questions like: "Having quit Google in 2014 to become a Bitcoin entrepreneur, where does Mike Hearn get his income from? (seeing as everything he does is non-profit)"


Who said that? There's a subtle, but crucial, difference between "not being used" and "never to be used".

Bitcoin transactions are worth more than VISA transactions and I am willing to pay more for them.

I realize this is unspeakable for all the mainstreamers out there.

You get what you pay for.

Yeah, I think that 90%+ is best, even if it means we have to deal with hitting the limit for a little while as they think of something else.

Whats this about DNSSEC PKI vs x.509?. Why isn't something like Convergence being investigated?