Pages:
Author

Topic: What happens now that BitcoinXT is essentially dead - page 3. (Read 3271 times)

hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?


~BCX~

So by this logic should we not take seriously all owners of failed pull requests? Logic = 0!

How do you compare a major fork attempt with a pull request?  
You just do.
You guys are acting like BitcoinXT was something that never happened before. It may not have happened in the Bitcoin world, but it happens all the time in the Open Source World. So, if their proposal is not accepted by an economic majority, they drop it, and start working on other projects. Business as usual. Nothing dramatic about that.
You guys are just a bunch of retarded fanboys, like in all this stupid iPhone vs. Android wars ...

It really isn't comparable and if you can't see it then it is likely you are part of the "retarded" gang.
Why is it not comparable? Please enlighten me.

Because this is a 3B$ economy that depends on trust. Forcing a contentious hard fork for political motives divides the consensus & undermines that trust which puts everyone's money at risk.
So, it is the worth of the project?
Linux is worth more and forks happen all the time. That was exactly the kind of fanboy answer, I expected.

Worth of the project? No, this is an economy based on trust dipshit, hasn't anything to do with "the worth". Moreover their hard fork was not based on technical dissent but political ideologies as they attempted to force their turd down the throat of "the community" using PR tactics, propaganda & fud using their "authority".

No one's investment is directly at risk from a Linux fork. You're a clown  Undecided
1. It is not based on trust. You are not even able to understand a fundamental principle of Bitcoin.
2. It is a open source project, calling it an economy or using other term to make it sound special, just confirms, that I am talking with a fanboy, who doesn't want to see reality.
3. Same with calling it "not technical dissent but political ideologies", just because you don't like the solution, they provided.
4. Yes, a Linux fork, could cause people to lose their investment. Again, nothing unusual here in the Bitcoin World.

@Carlton Banks
and again ad hominem is all you can provide ...
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?


Gavin A. goes Peter R.; Bitcoin unlimited:

"In my heart of hearts, I think everything would be just fine if the block limit was completely eliminated. I think actually nothing bad would happen."



He can't have said this after this weekend's conference. If he did then he's even more of a clown than I thought.

When I compare him with you, then I know who's the clown.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Yes, since when was Linux a consensus based p2p network?

turvaya is conflating the forking of the code with the forking of the chain, but I would expect nothing less than more nonsense arguments from the BIP101 bible bashers at this stage
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?


~BCX~

So by this logic should we not take seriously all owners of failed pull requests? Logic = 0!

How do you compare a major fork attempt with a pull request?  
You just do.
You guys are acting like BitcoinXT was something that never happened before. It may not have happened in the Bitcoin world, but it happens all the time in the Open Source World. So, if their proposal is not accepted by an economic majority, they drop it, and start working on other projects. Business as usual. Nothing dramatic about that.
You guys are just a bunch of retarded fanboys, like in all this stupid iPhone vs. Android wars ...

It really isn't comparable and if you can't see it then it is likely you are part of the "retarded" gang.
Why is it not comparable? Please enlighten me.

Because this is a 3B$ economy that depends on trust. Forcing a contentious hard fork for political motives divides the consensus & undermines that trust which puts everyone's money at risk.
So, it is the worth of the project?
Linux is worth more and forks happen all the time. That was exactly the kind of fanboy answer, I expected.

Worth of the project? No, this is an economy based on trust dipshit, hasn't anything to do with "the worth". Moreover their hard fork was not based on technical dissent but political ideologies as they attempted to force their turd down the throat of "the community" using PR tactics, propaganda & fud using their "authority".

No one's investment is directly at risk from a Linux fork. You're a clown  Undecided

hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?


~BCX~

So by this logic should we not take seriously all owners of failed pull requests? Logic = 0!

How do you compare a major fork attempt with a pull request?  
You just do.
You guys are acting like BitcoinXT was something that never happened before. It may not have happened in the Bitcoin world, but it happens all the time in the Open Source World. So, if their proposal is not accepted by an economic majority, they drop it, and start working on other projects. Business as usual. Nothing dramatic about that.
You guys are just a bunch of retarded fanboys, like in all this stupid iPhone vs. Android wars ...

It really isn't comparable and if you can't see it then it is likely you are part of the "retarded" gang.
Why is it not comparable? Please enlighten me.

Because this is a 3B$ economy that depends on trust. Forcing a contentious hard fork for political motives divides the consensus & undermines that trust which puts everyone's money at risk.
So, it is the worth of the project?
Linux is worth more and forks happen all the time. That was exactly the kind of fanboy answer, I expected.
and btw. Bitcoin is a trustless system. Please read the whitepaper
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?


Gavin A. goes Peter R.; Bitcoin unlimited:

"In my heart of hearts, I think everything would be just fine if the block limit was completely eliminated. I think actually nothing bad would happen."



He can't have said this after this weekend's conference. If he did then he's even more of a clown than I thought.

Well, Andresen recently retracted statements that the Core dev team had been judged by the Bitcoin community as in need of dismissal from their posts (made in his joint podcast appearance with Adam Back). He's making pretty bizarre statements across the board at the moment.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?


~BCX~

So by this logic should we not take seriously all owners of failed pull requests? Logic = 0!

How do you compare a major fork attempt with a pull request?  
You just do.
You guys are acting like BitcoinXT was something that never happened before. It may not have happened in the Bitcoin world, but it happens all the time in the Open Source World. So, if their proposal is not accepted by an economic majority, they drop it, and start working on other projects. Business as usual. Nothing dramatic about that.
You guys are just a bunch of retarded fanboys, like in all this stupid iPhone vs. Android wars ...

It really isn't comparable and if you can't see it then it is likely you are part of the "retarded" gang.
Why is it not comparable? Please enlighten me.

Because this is a 3B$ economy that depends on trust. Forcing a contentious hard fork for political motives divides the consensus & undermines that trust which puts everyone's money at risk.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?


~BCX~

So by this logic should we not take seriously all owners of failed pull requests? Logic = 0!

How do you compare a major fork attempt with a pull request? 
You just do.
You guys are acting like BitcoinXT was something that never happened before. It may not have happened in the Bitcoin world, but it happens all the time in the Open Source World. So, if their proposal is not accepted by an economic majority, they drop it, and start working on other projects. Business as usual. Nothing dramatic about that.
You guys are just a bunch of retarded fanboys, like in all this stupid iPhone vs. Android wars ...

It really isn't comparable and if you can't see it then it is likely you are part of the "retarded" gang.
Why is it not comparable? Please enlighten me.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?


Gavin A. goes Peter R.; Bitcoin unlimited:

"In my heart of hearts, I think everything would be just fine if the block limit was completely eliminated. I think actually nothing bad would happen."



He can't have said this after this weekend's conference. If he did then he's even more of a clown than I thought.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 250
Earn with impressio.io
What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?


~BCX~

I'm sure they'll just continue on as usual, unless they get butthurt and throw a paddy. Personally I don't have any respect for them after this stunt. They went about it completely the wrong way.

^^-- AGREE
hero member
Activity: 500
Merit: 500
What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?


~BCX~

I'm sure they'll just continue on as usual, unless they get butthurt and throw a paddy. Personally I don't have any respect for them after this stunt. They went about it completely the wrong way.
staff
Activity: 4270
Merit: 1209
I support freedom of choice
Gavin A. goes Peter R.; Bitcoin unlimited:
Gavin always wanted the unlimited block, he tried to make some compromises with 20 MB first, and 8 MB then.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?


Gavin A. goes Peter R.; Bitcoin unlimited:

"In my heart of hearts, I think everything would be just fine if the block limit was completely eliminated. I think actually nothing bad would happen."

staff
Activity: 4270
Merit: 1209
I support freedom of choice
We have to see what will happen with BIP101 (or something better) at the time where the block will be everytime full Wink
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?


~BCX~

So by this logic should we not take seriously all owners of failed pull requests? Logic = 0!

How do you compare a major fork attempt with a pull request? 
You just do.
You guys are acting like BitcoinXT was something that never happened before. It may not have happened in the Bitcoin world, but it happens all the time in the Open Source World. So, if their proposal is not accepted by an economic majority, they drop it, and start working on other projects. Business as usual. Nothing dramatic about that.
You guys are just a bunch of retarded fanboys, like in all this stupid iPhone vs. Android wars ...

It really isn't comparable and if you can't see it then it is likely you are part of the "retarded" gang.

legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
XT may be dead now and may die more tomorrow or have a fresh breath... But ideas live on and that's what really matters. If XT fails miserably, they at least achieved something important: people are now talking more seriously about changes in Bitcoin and future disputes will be more softer than this.

XT ideas might end up in Core and others ideas might end up in Core too. We never know tomorrow Smiley

As for Gavin and Mike, yes, they can still be taken seriously, as they might have really good ideas in future.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?


~BCX~

So by this logic should we not take seriously all owners of failed pull requests? Logic = 0!

I might be wrong, but I believe it was both Jeff Garzik and Mike Hearn who came up with the bit ID's concept. That seemed like a really great idea (although I believe it was Hearn who was pushing the concept of using passport RFID tokens as the key for the master account for each chain of ID's, which was admittedly a terrible idea)

Ditto the Payments Protocol, not ideal (I disliked the idea intially), but Hearn and Andresen made convincing arguments about that issue (even though that protocol will probably be replaced by something technically superior before it gets much common use).

So it's fair to say that Hearn and Andresen have both come up with as many good ideas as they have bad ones, those are just the ones I like best of theirs.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
All i know is Bitcoin won't grow with this tiny blocksize and some people here are deliberately hindering this for their own benefit, this bs is keeping bitcoin from mooning where companies like fidelity are trying to build on the blockchain and the thing maxes out, even 8 mb is a joke.

So what do you propose? 1GB blocks?

"Keeping Bitcoin from mooning"  Cheesy

Of course!..... It's increasingly obvious greed is what's keeping the majority of you noobs from seeing things clearly.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?


~BCX~

So by this logic should we not take seriously all owners of failed pull requests? Logic = 0!

How do you compare a major fork attempt with a pull request? 
You just do.
You guys are acting like BitcoinXT was something that never happened before. It may not have happened in the Bitcoin world, but it happens all the time in the Open Source World. So, if their proposal is not accepted by an economic majority, they drop it, and start working on other projects. Business as usual. Nothing dramatic about that.
You guys are just a bunch of retarded fanboys, like in all this stupid iPhone vs. Android wars ...
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1008
All i know is Bitcoin won't grow with this tiny blocksize and some people here are deliberately hindering this for their own benefit, this bs is keeping bitcoin from mooning where companies like fidelity are trying to build on the blockchain and the thing maxes out, even 8 mb is a joke.
Pages:
Jump to: