Topic: Where would Bitcoin be without XT and Unlimited? - page 2. (Read 1755 times)

Was it not Satoshi himself that placed the 1mb hard cap on the size of the blocks? You are here longer than me. So I ask you, why do you think he did it? For me, at first impression it would because Satoshi might be already be getting concerned about the size of the blockchain and to solve the scalability problem, Bitcoin must take a more conservative route than a reckless one. But what do you think?

Ok Franky you make a good point there, but would you care explaining what their motives would be, to do this? Do you think they will deliberately code something that might cripple Bitcoin in the future to pave the way for Hyperledger? If they are doing this, why are people accepting this and what prevents them from shifting to a better implementation or even a Alt coin, if this happens?

They will hurt their reputation with a Bait n switch like this and people will not support Hyperledger, once they realize what they have done. 

Semi-public communication is now one of the most, if not THE most effective means of communication and spreading opinions or information. We're seeing websites becoming more and more fringe and tailored to a specific idea. Even in the recent presidential election for the US these websites had a major impact on the distribution of information.

I say that, if you think that Gavin and Hearn were trying to sabotage Bitcoin, it only goes to show how effective control over a semi-public communication channel can be in spreading disinformation.

lol you do know that its only gmaxwell and chums wanting other implementations to controversially split. so core can swap out freedom for control

the other implementations want to consensually upgrade the network within a single network of diversity and independent choice.
seems you have been fed the wrong information.

oh and look at who is paying the core devs.. 93+ banks are now in the same group with contracts with gmaxwell and his chums.

goodluck trying to bait all of blockstreams faults as (fake) faults of anything not core related. it is obvious to see you want dictatorship not freedom or diversity.

much like Pieter Wuille implemented levelDB before actually doing any backward compatibility bug tests to see how it would effect the blockchain in 2013.. and whooops it split the chain..

0.8 leveldb bug

in short
pieter wuille is not your god either, even if he is paid to be

Bitcoin wouldn't be affected if Bitcoin XT and Unlimited weren't there. There would be more people at an agreement to stick to Bitcoin Core and the suggested upscaling methods by Bitcoin core team. Sadly, not all would have agreed on what was happening and few decided on having Bigger blocks (2MB, 8MB etc...) and attempted to get miners to run Bitcoin XT or classic or Unlimited so as to get a majority of the miners to mine larger blocks. But unfortunately that didn't work out well. Also, you'll notice a decline in Bitcoin XT/Classic/unlimited nodes.

FYI Satoshi was not particularly good in coding, and Bitcoin is probably much better off without a leader (although Satoshi may be around under a different alias).

Even if he/she/it did or did not, it would have changed nothing.

If he/she/it wanted to kill decentralization, then the answer is probably yes.

We can only speculate at this point.

You mean effective in creating bugs, like the one that broke the Bitcoin supply?

It is fine, if something has to change when Bitcoin's survival depends on that, but none of the implementations suggested by XT or Unlimited

was anywhere close to that. Yes, it was hyped as the "Doom n Gloom" scenario, and someone spammed the network to scare people into

believing that it was necessary, but when their money ran out... everything returned to normal. 

That point can hardly be challenged. There is no gold bug out there who would voluntarily agree to arbitrarily change the properties of gold, for example, its shine and luster, touch and feel. That said, such a day may come when it will be a question of life and death for Bitcoin, i.e. if it should remain the same and invariably die, or it should change and probably survive. Should the block hashing function get compromised this way or other (quantum computing or anything to that tune), this question will get raised instantly. There is likely no feature of Bitcoin that makes it what it is that would be totally invulnerable to a compromise of some kind...

In other words, laws carved in stone are rewritten in blood

I'm not sure if it would make a big difference.
At least this way we see how strong and united the community can be.
I see this more as a test to not divide us and keep focusing on the main points.
If XT and Classic wouldn't have been around I'm sure sooner or later someone else would have tried the divide and conquer/rule tactics against us with all the fud and smear.

XT had some fans, but now they're gone. Unlimited never popular and many of us even don't know about it. Classic isn't good idea either.
Because those drama, people can't accept new things/update such as LN and SegWit, especially with many FUDs around.

If Satoshi is still around, i'm sure the condition would be much better.

Satoshi wouldn't have been happy about XT, Classic or Unlimited since he wanted to keep the community together working in Core. He said supporting alternative software after 0.1 would be a bad idea, in fact, a "menace to the network":




This is something that all those big blockers "appealing to satoshi" tend to forget.

It's pretty clear that the initiatives of Gavin Andresen (meeting with the CIA and other governmental bodies, starting the Bitcoin Foundation, launching bigblock Bitcoin-clones) and Mike "RageQuit" Hearn leading to destruction of Bitcoin's decentralization stand against the core idea engraved into the Genesis block by Satoshi himself. Interestingly, Satoshi disappeared at the time of Gavin's visit to the CIA...

The idiotic and outright dangerous attempts by the XT and UnlimitedCoin supporters to force a controversial hardfork by launching a huge FUD campaign were a total failure. However the constant disparagement of Core developers by an army of trolls and paid shills were a significant emotional burden for progress. I'm grateful, that Core developers did withstand the psychological pressure forced on them and did what's in the best interest of all freedom-loving Bitcoiners.

ya.ya.yo!

the banking cartels dominance is already apparent, hyperledger is a "phase 2 attack"..

guess whos building it.. blockstream

the banking cartel want bitcoin to fail. they are doing it slowly and purposefully
much like boiling a frog by putting it in cold water and slowly heading it so that it doesnt jump around, rather than throwing it in hot water. and shocking it to jump around

instead of limiting sigops to control spam or other CODE/tech methods.. they use fee wars and use that as bait to promote LN
(rustyrusssel of blockstream heading it up)
right now half a dozen third world countries wont use bitcoin because a TX fee alone is more than an hours labour in their country.

as for the switch to LN. those making it(blockstream/banking cartel) had a round table meetup in milan and suggested a 0.006btc deposit fee to use LN for 10 days.. as an acceptable fee
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.html
them trying to figure out how to stop spamming on LN.
go to "results" and the spreadsheet shows using fees.
(prepaid tab) 0.006btc prepaid. locktime 864000seconds (10 days) at todays prices thats over $4.20 prepay fee (100 minimum wage hours labour in developing countries)

standard tricks of banking cartels, use economics to control everything. rather than rational and acceptable code

economics:
based on stats of real world uses of an average person using a credit card or buying something from a shop, is 42 times a month. (14 times per 10 days)
that 0.006 deposit (over $4 at todays valuation) just to use it 14 times(average real world usage)... is yet another barrier of entry.

so dont think LN is the utopia you think it is..
as for the next bait and switch they will propose (more reasons not to expand real bitcoin onchain capacity) will be sidechains.

look at blockstreams patent for BITCOIN sidechains
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&s1=%22bitcoin%22&p=1&OS=%22blockchain%22&RS=%22bitcoin%22

yes
they are trying remove the openness of what people can and cannot do with bitcoin by making any bitcoin sidechain property of Gmaxwell and adam back by default.

and guess what else. these sidechains are "demurrage" meaning your holdings of the sidchain token slowly disapears over time, and they get to keep the bitcoin that they lock you out from.

so while screwing with transaction fees decades befor they are important. is crippling bitcoin
so while delaying/holding off on REAL bitcoin capacity growth they are crippling bitcoin

know your enemy

blockstream came about in 2013
bitcoin-core came about in 2013

before blockstream it was bitcoin-qt, which anyone could tinker with
gmaxwell and many others have been paid to go against the bitcoin ethos and instead forfil contractual obligations

know your enemy

dont give core(blockstream contractors and 90+ unpaid spell checker interns) ultimate power of dictatorship.
instead get bitcoin back to being a decentralised and diverse open network of free-choice and no barriers.

we should not rely on those offchain plans as the future of bitcoin. especially in the hands of the bankers. especially when its so obvious what the end game is

Satoshi was not a dictator, and his biggest mistake was to allow Gavin Andresen to participate in this experiment. If Gavin did not run to his masters, Satoshi would most probably still be around. Satoshi realized when these agencies got involved the experiment would fail, so he went dark.

Satoshi is not here to fight for Bitcoin, and it is now our duty to defend it against the people who wants it to fail. We should consider this as phase 1 in the attacks, because the other Blockchain based Ledgers are still under development and when they are done, we will see phase 2. ^hmmmmm^

Satoshi is no longer sticking around, we don't even know if he is still alive or whether he was alive at all. I mean he might not be an individual in the first place, and Bitcoin itself might have been developed by a group of people pretending to be a person or even by some alphabet agency, just like the hashing algorithm it uses for generating blocks (namely, sha-256) has been designed by the NSA. In short, your questions are impossible to answer, and you should know that yourself...

That's why this discussion makes no sense as such and will take wrong direction every time

not so much taken charge. but more so got people to realise that the consensus mechanism is a tool for diverse compromise and agreement. not to ignore it and instead divide and conquer

This discussion is taking the wrong direction.. racism and Chinese world domination is not the point. We should answer the question... Would

we have been this divided, if Satoshi was still around? Was this done deliberately to divide and conquer? I think Satoshi would have taken

charge of the situation and he would have increased the Block size { within limits } and this would have squashed all competition or sabotage.

 

satoshi is not a GOD so even if satoshi was still around or comes around today satoshi would still remain 1 opinion and although satoshi is the creator, we should not give's satoshi's opinion any more value than we give other developer's in my opinion.

but yeah i think if satoshi was around maybe things would have moved forward faster because of this GOD like figure we have been giving.