Topic: Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream (Read 7429 times)

but fork off already kiddos.

cant wait for january.

Yes, happy slaves (masochists) are dead scared when they get a vote.

It's a wonder they don't accuse Satoshi of authoritarianism for not having people vote for what should've gotten into Bitcoin.

"DEVELOPER CENTRALIZATIONSS!!!!"

These "bitcoin is a democracy" people scare me. Is there a way we can get them to go away?

I am neither a nationalist nor a globalist. I postulate anarchism. But I know also that direct democracy is not as bad as the indirect version.

I suppose that is why they open source their work?  Doh!


Actually, I mostly dislike nationalists who have a blind eye to any problems that their nation has and constantly hammer on one perceived positive which, as likely as not, exists mostly in name only.  Just like 'democracy' in the U.S. for all intents and purposes.

The only retarded think is to think, that Bitcoin development is a pure rational thing. Have you ever read reddit posts from your beloved Core developers? Do you really think, they are purely rational without any human fault? Are you aware that the term "consensus" was used in politics long before PCs were invented?
For sure, there is politics in Software Development, just denying that fact, doesn't make it go away.

Authoritarians (blockstreamers and their cheerleaders) hate competition. They love rulers and imperatives:

"We don't need democracy!"
"GTFO" (brg444)

And they hate Switzerland. (tvbcof)

q.e.d.

To separate the wheat from the chaff (to fork that mentality away from bitcoin) will be essential.

Pathetic. German Citizens can not decide whether to be a member of the EU or not. Swiss Citizens can. They also decide to rise the taxes or not. US Citizens can not.
If they want to vote against doing bank business in the USA, they can. Those are the reasons why Xapo fled to Switzerland.

You're right. You saw it all along.

You are misinformed.  

XT is an alt client that supports the Bitcoin blockchain and its rules and protocol.

The only difference is it will support bigger blocks IF AND WHEN 75% of the miners agree.
if and when that happens, core will either upgrade to be compatible or Bitcoin
will fork, but since the economic SUPER MAJORITY will be supporting bigger
blocks, the 1mb version of Bitcoin will likely be considered the alt.

Just because one code repository calls itself core doesn't give it exclusive rights
to control Bitcoin or call itself Bitcoin.   That's what people have been pointing out
for years when Bitcoin pessimists tried to argue that 'Bitcoin isn't decentralized
because it's run by a few core devs.'. Well, now we are seeing that indeed, it
is decentralized.  The core devs don't call all the shots and if they try to do
something the community doesn't like (such as take too long to increase
the blocksize), they will lose their power.

If one understands all this yet still insists on calling it an "altcoin", then
it is an attempt to mischaracterize and marginalize it, and an attempt
to influence opinion through misinformation (thus it is intellectually dishonest.)
It is also an attempt to force an outcome based on one's personal opinions
and biases, rather than allowing the economic majority to decide.

Actually I could argue the opposite. Since the original promise and vision of Bitcoin is that we should increase the block size, and not increasing the block size would give Bitcoin fundamentally different properties compared to its original vision. Because this is the case you could argue that not increasing the block size is actually breaking the social contract. If we do happen to be fundamentally ideologically opposed to some of the original vision of Bitcoin then these differences should be implemented in another cryptocurrency instead, which would allow the market to decide. This would be better then everyone fighting over what kind of a Bitcoin they want and projecting their desires onto it. Since this might just be an impossible position, for one cryptocurrency to accurately reflect everyone’s ideologies. It might be better to stay true with the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto for Bitcoin and if you do not agree with this vision it would be better if we just support another alternative cryptocurrency instead, that better reflect our own unique beliefs.

if we not upgrade to bip101

we are fuck
all bitcoin system are fucked


XT is evolution

Cypherdoc antagonizes marcus_of_agustus who does a little research and responds with this thread.  cypherdoc loses mojo as high-powered-shill; flees trolltalk.

I think someone captured what marcus_of_agustus said the cypherdoc here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spOvMHBz69k

Edit:  Opps.  Wrong thread.  I mean to post it on the PSA one.  Sorry about that.

XTcoin is an altcoin.

This is the correct section for all XT-related discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0

If you don't like the rules, set up your own forum.


ya.ya.yo!

No, this is an entitlement problem. A typical reflex of sheeps trying to reflect their desires into what Bitcoin ought to be.

Bitcoin says no.

So your counter argument is that I have gone full retard? For the record I am not a socialist. I do think that this is a predominantly political problem and not a technical one. The Bitcoin community needs to realize this so that we can resolve this dilemma before it causes even more problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6E

sorry Peter.  it happened long before the block size debate:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/23fr63/bitcoin_20_unleash_the_sidechains/cgwt2nz

and it took Adrian-X and i to pound it home all Fall and into the Spring when the block size debate arrived to make everyone realize what we were saying is true.

and it came at great sacrifice; to me at least.

"Bitcoin is a social contract"

"Consensus is a form of democracy"

Have we officially gone full retard?

Take your Rousseau socialism elsewhere won't ya?

In the case of Bitcoin, code is synonymous with politics. Code is law, Bitcoin is a social contract. Consensus is a form of democracy, and the fundamental protocol rules are like a constitution.