Quote from: turvarya on August 21, 2015, 03:41:02 PM

Quote from: Krona Rev on August 21, 2015, 11:21:40 AM

Another axiom could be that for a cryptocurrency to remain censorship-resistant it is vital that it can be safely run behind Tor. Finally, we could add an axiom that states that some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor.

First of all, I don't agree with OP. There are more choices. But, even if you make a good point, this is the worst axiom you could choose. You have to proof(or make a logical argument, if you prefer that terminology) , that there is code, that makes it hard to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor. An axiom should be something, that can't be proven, not something, you are just too lazy to proof.
Also attacking an axiom is nothing that is somehow forbidden(otherwise I could just take absurd axioms like "the sky is red") as a "logician" you should know that.

Attacking an axiom is definitely not forbidden. It's the only reasonable way to reject the conclusion of a correct argument. That's why I said:

Quote from: Krona Rev on August 21, 2015, 11:21:40 AM

Now, of course, you could say it isn't a logical argument because you don't accept one or more of the axioms, but this is not a criticism of the argument. It's a criticism of the axioms. I could give many logical arguments (and for a reasonable donation I'd be willing to formalize them), but you could always reject the conclusion by rejecting some axioms used. That's just how logic works.

You seem to have picked "some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor" as an axiom to question. I can first say that I'm aware that the announced intention of the code is to counter a DDOS attack. I can even concede that is the reason for the code and that nothing nefarious is intended. (I don't know, of course.) Nevertheless, it's clear that under some conditions nodes will begin dropping connections to nodes behind Tor. This will make it difficult to run Bitcoin behind Tor, at least during those times. In the axiom I used the phrase "safely behind Tor," but I haven't justified "safely." I don't really need to since my original argument wouldn't depend on "safely." I could weaken the axiom by dropping "safely" and still make an argument concluding XT should be opposed. Nevertheless, it seems that if a user running Bitcoin XT behind Tor isn't careful, the code might make certain calls that reveal the user's true IP. That's how I would justify "safely" if it became necessary.

Quote from: turvarya on August 21, 2015, 03:41:02 PM

... as a "logician" you should know that.

I hope the scare quotes aren't a sign of logophobia. I mean, it's the 21st century. We're here. We're clear. Get used to it.

Edit: The last line was just for fun. I thought I made up the word "logophobia" meaning "fear of logic." It turns out "logophobia" is already a word that means "fear of words." So it turns out it doesn't even make sense.