Topic: Where would Bitcoin be without XT and Unlimited? (Read 1755 times)

The only reason they exist is to express ideas that couldn't propagate via any other means.  One way or another, they were going to happen.  And I'll explain why that's a good thing.  In my mind, the strongest system is survival of the fittest, trial by fire, proven in battle, etc.  Not a system where we coddle or overprotect the ideas we personally approve of and stifle all dissent.  Echo chambers rarely produce the best results.  I feel it's healthier and more robust to throw all the ideas out there, let them run the gauntlet, prove their worth and see which ones make it back both alive and hardened in combat.

Yea, I am also sick of all the Big blockers and Gavin fanboys and Small blockers fighting each other. The discussion should be about Bitcoin, and if XT/Classic/Unlimited would have had any influence on the success of Bitcoin, not the right or wrongs being done on both sides.

I think it had a influence, and we would have been much stronger, if they did not exist. ^hmmmm^

Just wanted to see it in Blue, please carry on. 


 

No. Kiklo spouts a lot of nonsense, presenting merely possible conclusions as matters of settled fact. But he or she is indeed correct that any group in collusion holding greater than half of the mining power can rewrite the blockchain*.

The '95% consensus' is merely a self-imposed threshold.

*Of course, game theory points out that they stand to lose their vast investment in hashing machines, as users abandon a broken system.








Further, they still have not clarified what the heck they are spouting about by saying "it was the Chinese mining pools that blocked the proposed updates". But again, I've kind of lost interest in that particular discussion.

it doesn't matter who works for whom or wants to implement what, we are talking about bitcoin with the biggest community and the most spread mining not a random altcoin.

and how much hash rate does each Chinese pool have? 10%? 20%? or even the combination 60%?

a consensus needs 95% to switch !

Hmm, here is a thought.

All of these guys causing confusion over the BTC Dev team proposals are probably working for Chinese Mining Pools.
Since it was the Chinese mining pools that blocked the proposed updates.  

Art of War
Sun Tzu
“The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent.”

 

Once again the format of the discussion is swiftly devolving into which "side" has the more sinister boogeyman.  Every damn time.

Just for once, can we not leave the personalities and corporations out of it and shut up about Gavin/Blockstream/Hearn/R3/etc and how evil they all supposedly are or aren't?  It can't be that difficult just to discuss ideas on merit, rather than speculate on the agendas or motives of people and companies you've probably never even met.  And no, I don't care if you have met any of them.  They're still baseless accusations of intent.  You don't actually know what any of them really want.

C'mon, just this once.  Please.



Code > Motive/Agenda/Intent/etc

First, I will pause by noting that you failed to answer even one of my direct questions. Whatevs. That said....


I don't believe for a minute that the purpose behind XT and Classic was to "create confusion and to divide the community". What utter twaddle. Gavin had been speaking for years about the need to increase the block size. These were merely an attempt to do so.

What evidence can you point to to support your assertion that the purpose behind XT and/or Classic was to "create confusion and to divide the community"?


When his initial attempt was unsuccessful, he tried another approach that he likely beleived would have greater chance of success. What would you expect a rational person to do in such a circumstance?


Make money? In what way would his capacity to make money have changed if things had gone differently?


I really don't know at what time Mike had started talking to R3. I'm guessing you also have no idea, and you are just talking out of your ass. Put up or shut up.


'A bomb'? You sound like a frightened schoolgirl. He merely stated his thoughts on the matter. That's not 'sabotage' as you claim. That is just making one's thoughts known. You can disagree with him if you desire (indeed, I disagree on his point that the failure to increase blocksize is a _fatal_ problem). But holding him responsible for 'sabotage' on this point is beyond the pale.

Cmon, Do not tell me you cannot see that XT and Classic were introduced to create confusion and to divide the community? Gavin jumped

from the one to the other, when he found no place to make money. Both Gavin & Hearn underestimated their popularity within the Bitcoin

community, and when they realized that.... it was already to late to turn back. Mike already had a exit plan with R3 ... so he jumped ship,

and left a bomb to sink it... but that failed, and we are still sailing. 

from 2009 there were many independent people working on bitcoin, they were compiling their own implementations and helping each other with new features and bug fixes. where sourceforge was one of many, but the most popular location of the code. but some had their own locations too, which was advisable

as it approached 2010 more people joined and helped.
satoshi disappeared by the end of the year when bitcoin gained negative press as drug currency and devs were being slated as government plants.

in 2011 github became one of the locations aswell as sourceforge and other places as the main download locations.

by the time it got to 2013 (2 years after satoshi left) github became the popular download location. but people still had their own versions in other download locations.

2013 github.com/bitcoin got rebranded into bitcoin core, and suddenly they seen themselves not as independent individuals but as a power house. between 2013-2015 several people got peed off that it was turning into a power house and some left for different reasons

a few notable names were either pushed out, deemed negative to the power house, moved off as a bait and switch. and many other dramatic things.

mike hearn: owned bitcoinJ and started up XT with other devs and sourced some VC funding (hindsight: was a bait and switch when the bankers were trying to gain control of bitcoin they linked themselves to blockstream, bitcoinj and XT).
it was a bait and switch because blockstream-core devs were attacking XT as banksters(hindsight: attacking their own), to at the time hide/distract cores involvement with bankers by pretending something not core was the banker enemy.

gavin andresen: moved away from blockstream-core due to the banker politics. and joined XT, but soon found out they too were still part of the same banker politics, so he moved out again and formed his own dev group in classic.

other names: J garzik moved to bitpay, then formed bloq, then joined the bankers...,
others moved over to MIT, blockchain.info, or other bitcoin related developments.

even today luke JR is trying to brand his implementation as Knots, as an alternative to core, while being paid by the same bankers that contract devs in core, bitcoinj, and xt.

independent code and non-banker funded implementations are becoming harder to find. even green address and other bitcoin standalone or web based /app based implementations ar coming under the same banker control.

so far the main one not attached to bankers is BU (even gavin seems to be tied to bankers now, due to his ties to bloq). but that hasnt stopped the bankers diverting banker intentions of core, by attacking BU as being the saboteurs. as the latest bait and switch to try getting users into the banker dominance camp (wolf calling a sheep a wolf, to scare the sheep into the wolves mouths)

Really? He wasn't good in coding? If now bitcoin is without leader, than why did he leave bitcoin, his creation? PS I think satoshi won't be "it".
I read posts and people says that Gavin and Hearn are trying to sabotage bitcoin, can anyone tell me who are these people? Sorry for my low knowledge in this tast but I am very interested in it.

Yes that was a big mistake and just plain wrong from their part. If only they had not started a smear campaign against the then QT developers and had not done any FUD and instead campaigned for their own argument on why bigger blocks are better, then Gavin and Hearn might still be around and the people might still be listening to them.

love it when lauda can argue with himself and counter his own point with his own defense

kprawn i can see your tying to wake up from the propaganda.

but here is something you need to understand about bitcoin.

bitcoin is not a single dot
.
nor ever should be
imagine it like 52 dots(i CBA to use 5200 dots for this demo, but i think you understand the idea)
.............
.............
.............
.............

out of those dots
the majority are run in separate locations by separate people

out of the dots some are fully uptodate(coloured), some are out of date(black)

when it comes to 'locations' needing to be targeted by DDoSers there are upto 52(but not exactly) dots required to hit
when it comes to 'locations' needing to be targeted by file deletion virus there are upto 52(but not exactly) dots required to hit

but,
when it comes to 'diversity' needing to be targeted by bug risks created recently, there are 17 redpurpleorgange, 4 blue, 1 green, (rest are individual)
when it comes to 'diversity' needing to be targeted by trojan risks created recently, there are 17 redpurpleorgange, 4 blue, 1 green, (rest are individual)
when it comes to 'diversity' needing to be targeted by old bugs, there are 42 redpurpleorgangeblack, 4 blue, 1 green, (rest are individual)

when it comes to groups control of rules,
42 (red, orange, purple and black) coded by one group.
6 (blue and black) coded by another group
2 (black) by another group
and the final 2 are individual

when you start to realise 52 dots are not 52 dots, but instead clusters(points of weakness) of less dot. and that instead of a 51%mining attack but a malicious 51%dev attack can happen. you start to see where the risks lay.

location is diverse, but dev diversity is not.
when you realise 42 of 52 dots are coded by a team that has banking interests.
and that team are trying to get 10 dots to fork off to an altcoin. to have 42 of 42 control.. you see the problem

strangely those 10 dots. have never wanted to fork off or wanted the 42 to fork off. they just want there to not be a >51% dev attack/dictatorship.
and instead improve diversity(no >51% single control) where rules only change when the dots(not groups) can in the majority consent to a logical upgrade independently and without group dictatorship.

right now the group that coded the 42 dots, want 42 of 42 dots to all be running red software. and other dots be on a different network
right now the group that coded the 6 dots 2 dots and other 2 dots, want more groups, more diversity and more independent dots

where by each group happily communicate together on one network and change the rules when each dot is happily agreeing to a certain setting independently (consensus)

OK, let's address each one, shall we?

First, what is 'Gavin's competing technology' and in what manner is it 'hurting Bitcoin'? In what way does such 'hurt' rise to the level of 'sabotage'?

Second, do you believe that Hearn has some sort of responsibility to work on things other than what he desires? Further, what value do you think the term 'rage quit' brings to the discussion? Assuming he legitimately arrived at a personal determination that the weakly-defined governance model -- or any other characteristic -- rendered Bitcoin to be destined for failure, what would you expect him to do - lie to the world at large about what he believes that prospects are? In what way are his comments 'sabotage'?

If your idea of 'sabotage' is synonymous with your definition of 'not supporting', you might expect that others find your communiques puzzling at best.

try not to cast the same brush of hearne against other devs..

hearne works for r3 too..

hearne was another bait and switch

If you want to make a counter statement, go for it. I am curious to know how a rage quit from Hearn and Gavin's competing technology are

not hurting Bitcoin. To go public and telling people Bitcoin is a failed experiment, is definitely not my idea of someone trying to support the

technology. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/15/mike-hearn-senior-bitcoin-developer-says-currency-failed-experiment

No. That is entirely different. He's not the only person to blame there, as the code was reviewed by others.

Yes he/she/it did in order to combat spam, the same spam which we're dealing with today.

I'm pretty sure his identity is still sound, so definitely a no on the prison part.

That's my thought, he's there walking on other shoes and none noticed it and in this way he can take off a good weight from their shoulders.

Or he's dead or in a prison, we will never know...

blockstream dont care or need "bitcoin rep".. no one is paying them bitcoins to code bitcoin. they dont want rep from the bitcoin community long term.
motive:
they have $90mill and banker rep..which is their long term thing they want to keep. they see bitcoin as just "the experiment" done voluntarily and that calling it "an experiment" shows their mindset of desire to fail

as for the bitcoin community
by people supporting the idea of LN, sidechains.. people are NAIVELY supporting hyperledger(the banks), without knowing it.
(guess who is going to run the sidchains. guess who is going to dual-sign as the hub people channel to)

actions:
much of it rvved up in early spring this year with the R3CKED campaign. gmaxwell while actually paid by R3. was shouting to everyone to hate gavin, and hate all other implementations.
including classic, bu and dozen others..
Edit. i separated out hearne*, bitcoinj and xt, the next paragraph explains why

bitcoinJ is now blockstream friendly so dont expect unbasied diverse code. *hearne is part of the r3/blockstream bait and switch
blockstream also bought up a few other wallet services and blockexplorers into the banking cartel.. (check out hyperledger partners/members for familiar names)
bitcoin knots is blockstream friendly. programmed by a blockstream contractor (Luke JR) to fake an unbiased implementation but obviously coded segwit instead of his pledge for true capacity.

anyway, the plan was and still is to get all non blockstream controlled nodes to FORK to an alt. using any tactic they can to gain dominance.. gmaxwell was pushing anything not blockstream friendly as the nasty bankers or centralizers or bigblockers(hypocrisy bait and switch). fully knowing where gmaxwell was getting his own funding from and knowing his own end goals.

as for the term bigblockers.. funny that blockstream now want 4mb weight for the confidential features while still limited transaction capacity in the base at 1mb. (1mb base, 0.8mb witness, 2.2mb other features=4mb weight)

4mb is more then 2mb.. so cores 4mb is the real bigblockers

hypocrisy has been loud

here february 9th 2016
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2016/02/linux-foundation-s-hyperledger-project-announces-30-founding