Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[bluemoon]

@freetrader
Compromise is about swallowing pills, sometimes bitter ones. Sometimes all parties swallow them and on other occasions one party swallows them all.

When it comes to the red: that Machiavelli may be regarded as the founding father of political ethics says it all really.

And when it comes to the black: we see game theory being harnessed Machiavellian like to Core's ends (as @jonny1000 keeps trying to tell us).

Red is black and black is red.

If Machiavelli is father, Maxwell is son.

I look forward to jonny's spin.

 

[freetrader]

> Implement support for block timestamp to continue 292 billion years

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commits/hardfork2016

Good news is we some lucky bastards will probably be able to pay with Bitcoin in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

 

[Inca]

And Maxwell banned my IP address so that I can't even respond to his lies.

Never realised Gregory Maxwell was such a bad speller.

 

[jonny1000]

That is also @jonny1000's message to this forum: his insistence that we agree to withdraw opposing implementations, i.e. capitulate.

I have no problem with "opposing" or competing implementations. Please try to pay attention to the nuances in what I am saying.

Please withdraw your support from incompatible implementations like Bitcoin Classic, which deliberately and necessarily activates with significant opposition and provides a huge asymmetric advantage to that opposition, such that the opposition to Classic wins and Bitcoin Classic coins vanish from your wallet.

If you want to do a symmetric hardfork without locking in a 75% to 25% split in the hashrate, (e.g. where 95% or 5% support is possible), then fine. Or if you want to change the PoW, then fine. Minority opposition may be unable to ensure your coin is destroyed. Stop complaining & Go ahead!! I look forward to trading against you on the markets.

However, the main reason you seem to want to do this is hatred of the Core team, driven by their opposition to Classic. If so, why do the fork given that:

1. The opposition to Classic is entirely reasonable as I explained above
2. If you want to get rid of the Core, just create or contribute a competing compatible implementation and watch the market share of the Core version fall.

Please stop conflating a team you do not like, making one particular client with the Bitcoin protocol rules.

 

[Richy_T]

Had this stream of consciousness on reddit and thought it might give you guys something to chew on

[doublepost=1470546304][/doublepost]

> Implement support for block timestamp to continue 292 billion years

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commits/hardfork2016

Good news is we some lucky bastards will probably be able to pay with Bitcoin in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

Surely that can be done with an uncontroversial soft-fork. Just kick out his scripture stuff and add it in there.

 

[Zarathustra]

However, the main reason you seem to want to do this is hatred of the Core team, driven by their opposition to Classic.

Hating totalitarian censorship, notorious vandalism and all the famous disgusting behavior of that 'team' is a sign of health.
Supporting it is a a sign of serious mental illness. You will never find a double digit consensus for that support, because the majority in our uncensored forum is not (yet) mentally compromised.

Bitco.in - no censorship, no BS!

 

[jonny1000]

totalitarian censorship

The moderation policies on the private web forums you do not agree with have nothing to do with Bitcoin Core. The Many members of the Core team has even come out against some moderation policies.

While there are many forums in which the Bitcoin community and, indeed, Bitcoin Core contributors engage, Bitcoin Core is not responsible for those forums or their policies, nor does Bitcoin Core take official positions on the community’s decisions to use them. Still, we believe it is critical that the Bitcoin community be able to freely discuss and critique every aspect of Bitcoin.

Source: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/28/clarification/

notorious vandalism

What vandalism? The Core team has openly criticized many inappropriate forms of behavior:

The Bitcoin community can become extremely excited and heated when discussing Bitcoin, but we must all work to maintain a civil tone. Community members should not engage in brigading, denial-of-service attacks, or otherwise disrupt healthy discussion and we should all do our best to assume good faith in absence of reason to believe otherwise.

Source: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/28/clarification/

famous disgusting behavior of that 'team' is a sign of health.

Both sides in this dispute have used almost identical tactics. Please try to remain objective, if you read the following news article would you think its disgusting?

HONG KONG - Sun 7th August 2016

In a meeting that went on into the early hours of Sunday morning in Hong Kong, Bitcoin miners representing 85% of the global hashrate reached an agreement with the Bitcoin community to run Bitcoin Classic and increase the capacity of the network. The Bitcoin community has been stuck in deadlock for almost 12 months, however last last night, after 12 hours of negotiations with developers including Gavin Andresen & Jeff Garzik, the miners signed an agreement to run Bitcoin Classic. The document says that miners present, including Antpool, BTCC, F2Pool and Bitfury, will all run Classic with 14 days.

Mr Andresen commented that "this is a brilliant step forward for Bitcoin, which will now be able to handle double the number of transactions, the first step towards more growth, which could eventually see the payment network handle enough transactions for millions of people to use Bitcoin"

If you read that in the news tomorrow, would you be pleased or think it is disgusting? Please be honest, I think we all know the answer. The above is almost identical to what "the other side" did. Does this not illustrate that you have no problem with the tactics? It is just that you hate what you think they stand for?

What about the XT website, which said if there was a disagreement "Mike makes the final call", which was then removed? Or what about the August 2015 industry letter of support for XT? How are these methods any less "disgraceful"? The methods are the same.

 

[bluemoon]

Please withdraw your support from incompatible implementations like Bitcoin Classic,

You simply prove my point. You seek the capitulation of those opposing Blockstream Core's malign domination of Bitcoin and its blinkered crippled vision. At least bugger off and go create your own coin, you say.

I am a supporter of the Core Bitcoin team, and in particular a supporter of the Core team’s prudent, sensible and pragmatic attitude to onchain scaling, onchain capacity increases and the philosophy on hardforks.

 

[jonny1000]

You seek the capitulation of those opposing Blockstream Core's malign domination of Bitcoin

No I do not. I would love more people to run more competing compatible clients. Stop conflating the team of one software version with the protocol rules.

At least bugger off and go create your own coin, you say

No, I would rather you stay. But I recognize your right and ability to create a new coin.

 

[Andre#]

I ran across this old BCT thread from Aug 2010 today. I thought that I had read all of them, but this one must have gotten by me. Pretty interesting read considering it is 6 years old:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=779.0

Apologies if this thread has been posted before.

Thanks cliff, a very interesting read, indeed! A lot of things discussed there already came about.

Notably, Gavin's assumption that money changers would not support a split has been disproven recently with ETC. There's always a money changer that wants to make a fast buck and starts to accept the alternative chain. And my gut feeling is that if money changers think that way, ultimately so will big merchants.

I found epaulson's remarks very to the point:

A lot of people go into business partnerships (or marriages) assuming there will never be any serious disagreements. I forsee that if bitcoin ever gains enough acceptance to have some significant money involved, there will inevitably be disagreements and even lawsuits about some of the things that are currently established only via consensus. Imagine someone getting a court order mandating everyone must use a particular bitcoin program (or *not* use a particular one) because alternatives cause them "financial harm."

Everyone here (including myself) is more intrigued by the technical aspects of bitcoin, but the social (and perhaps legal) aspects of the system are ultimately going to be more important, unless someone can figure out a way to solve these problems technically. If bitcoin is ever going to succeed beyond a novelty, these issues are going to have to be resolved somehow.

I'm no expert at "social engineering" but I think this needs to be a priority sooner, rather than later, if the project is ever going to succeed significantly. In the absence of some sort of cryptographic method (voting via CPU power?) which I would love to see, I think there needs to be an official, or even legal, framework about how decisions are going to be made when serious disagreements arise.

It makes me feel a little better about forking Bitcoin. Something I don't like, but which I feel more and more is becoming inevitable.

 

[Zarathustra]

The moderation policies on the private web forums you do not agree with have nothing to do with Bitcoin Core. The Many members of the Core team has even come out against some moderation policies.

BS. The CTO supports that terror, and all those who are writing there as if it was normal to write on and contribute to a totalitarian forum supports that terror too.
Declaring the two biggest Bitcoin forums as private is a disgusting idiocy.
There is only one honest reason to post there: to laugh about that policy and behavior until they ban you.

What vandalism? The Core team has openly criticized many inappropriate forms of behavior:

Source: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/28/clarification/

Lip service. We are not stupid. Everybody here knows the notorios vandalism history of the CTO (CVO); and his dipshits and minions are not much better. They never fighted actively against thermos' terror, as we did.

Both sides in this dispute have used almost identical tactics. Please try to remain objective, if you read the following news article would you think its disgusting?

Unscrupulous lies. We do not use identical tactics. We use the uncensored r/btc and the uncensored bitco.in forums. You are allowed to criticize Classic and BU in our forums. We are not allowed to criticize Kore in the preferred playgrounds of the Kore Gang. Thousands are banned.

 

[Andre#]

"Instead many are incorrectly convinced that the other side are liars, corrupt, conflicted, con-men (and their victims), sadists, perverted, trolls or idiots."

You can't put the Apartheid Regime and Mandelas movement into the same basket, unless you are dishonest. You can't put Luke, Maxwell, Todd and Thermos into the same basket with Andresen, Zander, the Zerg and Bloomie, unless you are dishonest.

I don't think F.W. de Klerk was a liar, corrupt, a sadist or an idiot. I think he was sincere that he thought he was doing the right thing. But it doesn't mean he was right, nor that the apartheid regime belongs in the same basket as the ANC.

At the time, we could all point out why the white supremacists were wrong. Just like now, we all can point out that without more seats on the bus, you can never have more people on the bus -- irrespective how much more fee they pay or how many busses to have to let go by.

You know that equal rights means that race shouldn't matter. You also know that more people using Bitcoin means more transaction capacity. It's not rocket science, really. It doesn't mean that there can't be circumstances to let go of equal rights or to let go of the goal of more people using Bitcoin. It can and there is. People's rights differ depending on where they are born, and we live with it because we can't agree to some kind of world government. Allowing bigger blocks might break Bitcoin, it could be a reason not to do so. But at least we could discuss the true reasons and motivations, and that's not being done. And that is dishonest, indeed.

EDIT: Gregory's idea that growth of Bitcoin may lead to war, may very well be the true reason why he is trying so hard to limit the growth of Bitcoin. And maybe, he is right (I don't know, really). For me, this is the first time he makes sense. I wish this would be discussed more openly. I guess he feels that shouldn't happen, hence all the BS that is made up.

 

[bluemoon]

No I do not. I would love more people to run more competing compatible clients. Stop conflating the team of one software version with the protocol rules.

The discussion of compromise was in the context of Classic and in that context you seek the capitulation of those here.

No, I would rather you stay. But I recognize your right and ability to create a new coin.

Perhaps "new coin" is a little loose, but rather than Classic, which you have always regarded as an "attack", you prefer Core's opponents either to work on competing coins, such as ethereum, or on versions of the bitcoin protocol which require starting from scratch in terms of existing bitcoin resources and market value, i.e. which do not threaten immediately to displace Core.

I've mostly given up reading your crude nuances, tedious repetitions, tendentious sophistry, and aggressive remarks, except more recently I find interest in sometimes slotting your sycophantic trolling into Wikipedia's political strategies framework.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_strategy

 

[jonny1000]

you prefer Core's opponents either to work on competing coins, such as ethereum, or on versions of the bitcoin protocol which require starting from scratch in terms of existing bitcoin resources and market value, i.e. which do not threaten immediately to displace Core.

No, no I do not. As I keep saying, if you do not like the team and want to displace it, build you own competing compatible implementation of Bitcoin. You can even copy any of Core's work. You can them complete your objective of displacing Core.

The discussion of compromise was in the context of Classic and in that context you seek the capitulation of those here.

The only reason I want the Classic campaign to become insignificant, it to create a benign environment where a hardfork to 2MB of non witness data is possible. The reason I am commenting so much now is it feels like we are pretty close.

If I lose and the Classic campaigning continues such that a hardfork is not possible. Luckily the network should be fine anyway, since the Core team have such a strong plan to large capacity increases anyway, via softforks and other means. It would just be nice to do it with you guys onside.
[doublepost=1470563674][/doublepost]

They never fighted actively against thermos' terror, as we did.

So now your principle complaint is they did not fight enough against the moderation policy on a private web forum? What would you have them do, DDoS Reddit?
[doublepost=1470564045,1470563342][/doublepost]

You are allowed to criticize Classic and BU in our forums. We are not allowed to criticize Kore in the preferred playgrounds of the Kore Gang

You are allowed to criticize Core software at /r/bitcoin, bitcointalk, dev mailing lists or any forum I know of. The rules in some Bitcoin forums is that you cannot flood the forum with messages campaigning to split the network in two and create new alt coins in a confusing, inappropriate, destructive and irrational way. These forums appear to have a policy, which is they do not want to become a venue used to facilitate the destruction of the system they are supposed to me used to talk about. Why is that so unreasonable?

The problem you have is you do not understand how unnecessarily destructive it is, to have a proposal like Classic, which locks in significant miner opposition and provides that opposition a huge asymmetric advantage such that victory is almost inevitable, after several months of network downtime, mass confusion and mass loss of funds. If you understood the potential damaging nature of that proposal to Bitcoin, you would appreciate why this particular forum did not want to facilitate and promote such damage.

Do you realize the admin of these forums is/was a strong large blockist? Theymos even complained to Satoshi at the time about the softfork to impose the 1MB limit. It is just that Classc/XT were potentially destructive, due to their inappropriate activation methodology.

 

[freetrader]

@jonny1000 :

build you own competing compatible implementation of Bitcoin. You can even copy any of Core's work. You can them complete your objective of displacing Core

The process has been started and I feel it's on good track.

Whatever happens, I believe Bitcoin will either
- die if it proves that it's subject to capture by any sort of controlling instance
- come out stronger, or maybe another crypto will learn from its failures (while we move over to it in time, hopefully)

“That which does not kill us makes us stronger.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

Do you realize the admin of these forums is/was a strong large blockist?

No, I didn't know that. @Bloomie, how could you! /s

 

[jonny1000]

The process has been started and I feel it's on good track.

Where?

 

[solex]

At the recent Coreblocker meeting in California Maxwell said:

If you imagine that everyone in the world would wake up tomorrow and know in their heart of hearts that bitcoin would be the true reserve currency of the world, then this would not be good news. The result would be war. People would fight over the supply of bitcoin.

This is seriously misguided.

Maxwell believes that Bitcoin itself is special, which it isn't because it has been cloned and copied and re-implemented many times (i.e. >700 alt coins). What is special is Bitcoin's network effect. Litecoin, for example, is just Bitcoin with some code changes and a rebranding, yet it has only a small network effect, hence it is not very valuable.

The idea of people fighting over Bitcoin is simply childish fantasies. They buy and sell on exchanges instead.

The only war that is underway is the war that Maxwell is carrying out against Bitcoin's network effect by arresting volume growth, creating sky-high fees, recently averaging 30 cents per txn. Spam has been squeezed out. New users can only come in when old users give up on Bitcoin.

He also fails to understand markets. The market price of each bitcoin is the sum of present value and future expectations. The future expectations already include the probability that it becomes global reserve currency. If the probability goes higher its value increases. People have bought what they need at the price they are prepared to spend. Other people are waiting and seeing what happens, or investing elsewhere in the cryptocurrency space.

Maxwell needs to stop waging war on Bitcoin's network effect and start helping it grow otherwise the probability of it becoming reserve currency will peak and fall. That may have already started happening as Bitcoin's share of the cryptocurrency capitalization is 80% and trending down.

 

[Zarathustra]

So now your principle complaint is they did not fight enough against the moderation policy on a private web forum? What would you have them do, DDoS Reddit?

Can't you read? They support that terror on that forum, which you disgustingly are declaring as 'private'.

You are allowed to criticize Core software at /r/bitcoin, bitcointalk, dev mailing lists or any forum I know of.

Notorious lies. No wonder you support those "pathological liars", which they are not just according to @Justus Ranvier.

 

[freetrader]

Even kanzure's transcripts of the California meeting are censored in a pathetic way.

Using '...' instead of blacking out does NOT make it any less censorship.

But I have noted you guys down for the 'Plausible Deniability' strategy on that score - I feel the list is nigh complete with the amount of @jonny1000 's passing the buck to Classic/XT and I'll soon have to look at the "Others" section in Wikipedia.

 

[Andre#]

The idea of people fighting over Bitcoin is simply childish fantasies. They buy and sell on exchanges instead.

I don't think that's what he means. It's not whether it's easy to buy BTC on an exchange. It's about the price you have to pay for it. It's about the transfer of wealth to the lucky few who acknowledged at an early stage that Bitcoin (or cryptos in general) would be a revolution. How I interpret his remark is that this process shouldn't go too fast, because that would create a lot of resentment, leading to friction (and possibly war). Apparently, he thinks that crippling Bitcoin now is a good way to slow it down, to keep the resentment caused by redistribution of wealth acceptable for the society at large (and especially the powers that be). Maybe I have it all wrong, but that's how it sounds to me.