Topic: The Anti-XTers Are Harming Bitcoin - page 7. (Read 5435 times)
this is such a bullshit! the stability of bitcoin comes from the trust on the fact that the game won't change! if they change one rule who can trust them to not change others? maybe tomorrow some smartass will consider to increase the number of coins or whatever...
This is you:
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
What this lacks in logic it makes up for by some how by being uncannily accurate. Now that you mention it, that is exactly what the OP sounds like
My friends, if you do not want XT, please provide a better solution. I am in support of increasing the block size via Core. Let's start promoting that. Who's with me?
Dynamic resizing is probably a better solution. As a category, it's a much more sophisticated alternative, and it sticks to free market principles instead of the central planning method (increase schedules).
There is more than one proposal for dynamic resizing, just as there is with scheduled hard limits. Check them out. You're likely to get left behind in this debate if you don't, I expect it will move on from XT vs Core, and the design of the dynamic resizing system will be the point of contention.
What anti-XTers fail to do is present a LOGICAL ARGUMENT against XT. They appeal to emotion. Gut feelings. Fear. They do not provide coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence.
-snip-
Yeah, been there, done that.-snip-
Quote
bug fix:
If "relay the first observed double spend" were generally accepted as a bug with a clean fix available, it'd be fixed in Core; superficial searching says it got reverted as problematic and contentious but I don't know the whole story, nor do I have an opinion on the change.
two minor things:
One is for Hearn's Lighthouse project, and also got merged, found buggy, and reverted. Without those eyeballs, would the lack of testing have been addressed and the bug in getutxos have been spotted before it was widely rolled out?
The other is adding back the bitnodes seed node that was removed for behaving in fishy ways, and adding a seed run by Mike
Is XT basically going to be every patch Mike Hearn ever had refused by NACKs in Core? Where does that road take you as a user of XT?
Simplified:If "relay the first observed double spend" were generally accepted as a bug with a clean fix available, it'd be fixed in Core; superficial searching says it got reverted as problematic and contentious but I don't know the whole story, nor do I have an opinion on the change.
two minor things:
One is for Hearn's Lighthouse project, and also got merged, found buggy, and reverted. Without those eyeballs, would the lack of testing have been addressed and the bug in getutxos have been spotted before it was widely rolled out?
The other is adding back the bitnodes seed node that was removed for behaving in fishy ways, and adding a seed run by Mike
Is XT basically going to be every patch Mike Hearn ever had refused by NACKs in Core? Where does that road take you as a user of XT?
- Automatic blacklisting controlled by the Tor project (AFAIK without their consent).
- Buggy block size validation.
- Lighthouse slave support.
- Incomplete/buggy double spend detection.
This is just really fear and I'm making all of this up.
The real question is why are people deluded with the "decentralization" from 6 developers to two? Anyone who claims that there is a urgency to increasing the block size is just spreading misinformation.
As far as I've seen Krona Rev gave you the requested "logical argument".
The above logic is ignorant. What anti-XTers fail to do is present a LOGICAL ARGUMENT against XT. They appeal to emotion. Gut feelings. Fear. They do not provide coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence.
what is dangerous for bitcoin is this RIFT which threatens to split bitcoin into two chains. They argue that after 75% of the community sides with XT they will hold strong, as the lonely 25% that got it right, and they will maintain their Bitcoin Core with their 1 MB block size limit, and we will just have two bitcoin chains after that.
what is dangerous for bitcoin is this RIFT which threatens to split bitcoin into two chains. They argue that after 75% of the community sides with XT they will hold strong, as the lonely 25% that got it right, and they will maintain their Bitcoin Core with their 1 MB block size limit, and we will just have two bitcoin chains after that.
What major miners or core developers or wallet exchange firms are against XT? I haven't heard a peep out of anyone!
The only people that are potentially against XT are users...and users don't get a vote in this system.
Well they have a vote but definitely not a strong one.
Really?
If the majority of users don't trade a coin all the other constituancies (Miners, exchanges, merchants, walltes) are useless.
Without users who are the main part in a functional market the rest is worthless.Merchants have no clients who would buy things, exchanges no clients who would trade, no wallets would be used and the miners incentive to mine would be zero because the coin would have no value.
The people who are using a coin are giving the coin it's value!!
We as users have a very strong vote!!!
What is no surprise to me at all is that you are a shill. I don't say it lightly, it's proven by that way you've avoided very carefully the two subjects that most terrify to any XT shill.
IP filtering
Trustless protocol
I agree it's an important moment for trustless protocols, luckily there is a ton of ALT coins to hedge against this stupidity.
Anti-XTers are not harming Bitcoin anymore than Xter shills are harming Bitcoin. The argument is not unexpected and is harming the price, but not the protocol, until it's broken, you are nothing more than a speed bump that will soon be long forgotten.
Take care Shill
If I don't make it on the "the biggest shills for Bitcoin XT and their true motives" thread after that I don't think I ever will
I don't know you so it would presumptuous of me to call you friend. I am afraid you have me wrong if you think I don't want XT, what I don't want is a leader who is selling larger block sizes while pushing IP filtering. It's dishonest but not unexpected.
The whole point of a trustless protocol is that no one of should have to be "with" anyone
The whole point of a trustless protocol is that no one of should have to be "with" anyone
You are right and I think this is a very important moment for bitcoin. My hope is that block sizes will be increased via Core and that perhaps we will learn from this a better way to "choose the choices" or arrive at consensus on these questions. Until then though I must shill for XT.
What is no surprise to me at all is that you are a shill. I don't say it lightly, it's proven by that way you've avoided very carefully the two subjects that most terrify to any XT shill.
IP filtering
Trustless protocol
I agree it's an important moment for trustless protocols, luckily there is a ton of ALT coins to hedge against this stupidity.
Anti-XTers are not harming Bitcoin anymore than Xter shills are harming Bitcoin. The argument is not unexpected and is harming the price, but not the protocol, until it's broken, you are nothing more than a speed bump that will soon be long forgotten.
Take care Shill
This is you:
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
Classic
I don't know you so it would presumptuous of me to call you friend. I am afraid you have me wrong if you think I don't want XT, what I don't want is a leader who is selling larger block sizes while pushing IP filtering. It's dishonest but not unexpected.
The whole point of a trustless protocol is that no one of should have to be "with" anyone
The whole point of a trustless protocol is that no one of should have to be "with" anyone
You are right and I think this is a very important moment for bitcoin. My hope is that block sizes will be increased via Core and that perhaps we will learn from this a better way to "choose the choices" or arrive at consensus on these questions. Until then though I must shill for XT.
This is you:
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
What this lacks in logic it makes up for some how by being uncannily accurate. Now that you mention it, that is exactly what the OP sounds like
My friends, if you do not want XT, please provide a better solution. I am in support of increasing the block size via Core. Let's start promoting that. Who's with me?
I don't know you so it would be presumptuous of me to call you friend. I am afraid you have me wrong if you think I don't want a name change (XT), what I don't want is a leader who is selling larger block sizes while pushing IP filtering. It's dishonest but not unexpected.
The whole point of a trustless protocol is that no one should have to be "with" anyone
This is you:
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
What this lacks in logic it makes up for by some how by being uncannily accurate. Now that you mention it, that is exactly what the OP sounds like
My friends, if you do not want XT, please provide a better solution. I am in support of increasing the block size via Core. Let's start promoting that. Who's with me?
This is you:
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
Still adding constructive and well thought out commentary to the discussions, I see.
This is you:
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
What this lacks in logic it makes up for some how by being uncannily accurate. Now that you mention it, that is exactly what the OP sounds like
..snip.. If you believe the economic incentive that makes bitcoin so special works just fine then you don't have to worry, a consensus will emerge. Bitcoin is currently experiencing is teenage crisis.
This is what I am hoping for. I expect it all to resolve and bitcoin will come out better and more resilient in the end.
Dear XTers,
Instead of assuming that you all use the poor logic that is presented in the OP I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't presume to know what all XTers think but I do know that there are some very logical reason to avoid using XT.
Any discussion in favor of the XT protocol avoids talking about 2 things, firstly that it's alleged purpose is not the only thing that's being introduced, and second that Satoshi himself has weighed in on the argument in favor of the "Anti-Xters"
Although the alleged purpose of the change is to allow for bigger block sizes the introduction of IP filtering by default without warning is the antithesis of a trustless protocol because if requires us to trust that the list of IP's being filtered is fair and just, ie trust.
Although I would not try to present Satoshi's negativity as a logical argument his reasoning is logical and in light of his historical relevance to the protocol deserves to be heard, not ignored or talked about as an "unhelpful" email has some of the XT religious types have done.
Here is a link to Satoshi's public comments about XT dated August 15 2015
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
This trap was not unexpected though, and our capture and subjugation is, at this stage, optional
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6E&t=3m3s
Instead of assuming that you all use the poor logic that is presented in the OP I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't presume to know what all XTers think but I do know that there are some very logical reason to avoid using XT.
Any discussion in favor of the XT protocol avoids talking about 2 things, firstly that it's alleged purpose is not the only thing that's being introduced, and second that Satoshi himself has weighed in on the argument in favor of the "Anti-Xters"
Although the alleged purpose of the change is to allow for bigger block sizes the introduction of IP filtering by default without warning is the antithesis of a trustless protocol because if requires us to trust that the list of IP's being filtered is fair and just, ie trust.
Although I would not try to present Satoshi's negativity as a logical argument his reasoning is logical and in light of his historical relevance to the protocol deserves to be heard, not ignored or talked about as an "unhelpful" email has some of the XT religious types have done.
Here is a link to Satoshi's public comments about XT dated August 15 2015
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
This trap was not unexpected though, and our capture and subjugation is, at this stage, optional
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6E&t=3m3s
Unless the message is signed, it is not Satoshi. Or at least, we cannot be sure that it is satoshi and therefore it is open to doubt and cannot be trusted the words of satoshi. Satoshi as spoken in the past and signed the message so we can be sure it is from him. Why did he not do it this time when it is so important? The only conclusion can be that the message was not satoshi but a clever anti-xter who was pretending to be satoshi.
Also, if you do not like XT, then you should working on supporting consensus for increasing the block size on Core. I am all for increasing the block size on core and throwing XT in the garbage. But until there is a better alternative, I support XT as the best current solution. You anti-XTers who do nothing but your spend your energy fighting against XT could be more productive by spending that same energy on finding an BETTER SOLUTION THAN XT, and implementing that solution. All your fighting against XT does nothing. Help us arrive at consensus to increase the block size on Core and you will do more to destroy XT than anything else could I guarantee you that.
I note that the arguments here against me are
1 - Not signed = not satoshi
--- Possible but that hardly makes the post irrelevant or inevitably an "Anti-XTer"
2 - I (along with every other "Anti-XTer") do nothing but spend my energy fighting against XT
--- Again possible, but hardly necessary when angry people make fools of themselves in support of XT they are doing a better job of turning people off XT than I ever could, also I did go out and see the sun today.
3 - My fighting against XT doesn't help us arrive at consensus to increase the block size.
--- Basically arguing with me about a subject I didn't mention so as to avoid any discussion of the trustless protocol or ip issues that I raised.
Thanks for quoting me, happy to see these links posted again.
This is the "my way or the highway" mentality that many people dislike. Why not work together to agree to a consensus? You can't force people to agree with you.
There has to be a sense of urgency, and that is what XT provides. I'm all for working together to agree to a consensus, but it's been years and now we could see big problems coming up within months if we do not finally do something. If all XT did was force us to finally increase the block size on Core before an actual catastrophe occurred then I will be happy. You can't just wait until your engine locks up to finally change your oil. XT is forcing us to think about changing the oil before the engine locks up. whatever way it happens is fine, all I want is the oil to be changed before the engine locks up. If XT is the only way it is going to happen then I support XT, if it can happen on Core, then I support Core. it just needs to happen and quickly.
Guilty. You're right we need to be thinking ahead and bigger blocks are inevitable for bitcoin to succeed as an online payment mechanism for the future.
Mainly I don't like this split. It's putting bitcoiners against other bitcoiners, when we are all supposed to be on the same team.
We are on the same team but with divergent opinions and it is just normal for very large group of people. If you believe the economic incentive that makes bitcoin so special works just fine then you don't have to worry, a consensus will emerge. Bitcoin is currently experiencing is teenage crisis. This kind of situation created by XT was inevitable from the start and what it does is just adding some pressure to accelerate that consensus so we can finally move forward.
This is you:
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
MOOOOOMMMMMMMM they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM
When you push for bigger block sizes, and even force for it... I have no problem. Most people agree, we need bigger block sizes BUT when you sneak code in to compromise people's
privacy and counter Tor use, and also gear your changes to make it easier for your own APP's to work. {Lighting network} ...Well with that I have a huge problem.
Both Gavin and Mike are brilliant developers, but they sold us out to the US government, by doing these things.
If you cool with that... you betting on the wrong side.
privacy and counter Tor use, and also gear your changes to make it easier for your own APP's to work. {Lighting network} ...Well with that I have a huge problem.
Both Gavin and Mike are brilliant developers, but they sold us out to the US government, by doing these things.
If you cool with that... you betting on the wrong side. This is the "my way or the highway" mentality that many people dislike. Why not work together to agree to a consensus? You can't force people to agree with you.
There has to be a sense of urgency, and that is what XT provides. I'm all for working together to agree to a consensus, but it's been years and now we could see big problems coming up within months if we do not finally do something. If all XT did was force us to finally increase the block size on Core before an actual catastrophe occurred then I will be happy. You can't just wait until your engine locks up to finally change your oil. XT is forcing us to think about changing the oil before the engine locks up. whatever way it happens is fine, all I want is the oil to be changed before the engine locks up. If XT is the only way it is going to happen then I support XT, if it can happen on Core, then I support Core. it just needs to happen and quickly.
Guilty. You're right we need to be thinking ahead and bigger blocks are inevitable for bitcoin to succeed as an online payment mechanism for the future.
Mainly I don't like this split. It's putting bitcoiners against other bitcoiners, when we are all supposed to be on the same team.
This is the "my way or the highway" mentality that many people dislike. Why not work together to agree to a consensus? You can't force people to agree with you.
There has to be a sense of urgency, and that is what XT provides. I'm all for working together to agree to a consensus, but it's been years and now we could see big problems coming up within months if we do not finally do something. If all XT did was force us to finally increase the block size on Core before an actual catastrophe occurred then I will be happy. You can't just wait until your engine locks up to finally change your oil. XT is forcing us to think about changing the oil before the engine locks up. whatever way it happens is fine, all I want is the oil to be changed before the engine locks up. If XT is the only way it is going to happen then I support XT, if it can happen on Core, then I support Core. it just needs to happen and quickly.
Why is there not consensus to do so NOW? I think the best way to avoid XT is to achieve increased blocks with Core. I would love it if this happens. All I want is increased blocks. XT is just giving us a time limit, which I like too, because I think it must be done before a crisis occurs because the blocks are too small.
Yes bigger blocks sound like an important issue, we should discuss the best way and time to implement such a change.
There's no need to rush into it because some one spammed the blockchain with their "stress test" last month.
Quote
Let's increase the block size on Core! Who's with me? No one? Ok then I'm all in with XT!
This is the "my way or the highway" mentality that many people dislike. Why not work together to agree to a consensus? You can't force people to agree with you.
The above logic is ignorant. What anti-XTers fail to do is present a LOGICAL ARGUMENT against XT. They appeal to emotion. Gut feelings. Fear. They do not provide coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence.
what is dangerous for bitcoin is this RIFT which threatens to split bitcoin into two chains. They argue that after 75% of the community sides with XT they will hold strong, as the lonely 25% that got it right, and they will maintain their Bitcoin Core with their 1 MB block size limit, and we will just have two bitcoin chains after that.
what is dangerous for bitcoin is this RIFT which threatens to split bitcoin into two chains. They argue that after 75% of the community sides with XT they will hold strong, as the lonely 25% that got it right, and they will maintain their Bitcoin Core with their 1 MB block size limit, and we will just have two bitcoin chains after that.
What major miners or core developers or wallet exchange firms are against XT? I haven't heard a peep out of anyone!
The only people that are potentially against XT are users...and users don't get a vote in this system.
No users no growth.
Jump to: