Quote from: Viscera on August 24, 2015, 05:01:23 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 24, 2015, 04:26:58 AM

Quote from: Viscera on August 24, 2015, 04:15:23 AM

Quote from: BitOfaLoserProdigy on August 24, 2015, 02:31:31 AM

I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical statement:

Quote from: Krona Rev on August 22, 2015, 07:11:25 AM

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.

I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.

I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.

Actually, you never challenged my argument.

And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument because you realized that I'm a douche bag who doesn't actually listen to logic unless it's in my favor:

Quote from: Krona Rev on August 23, 2015, 11:13:32 AM

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.

Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him.

Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic

How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be.

His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary.

Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted.

In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"

Quote from: BitOfaLoserProdigy on August 24, 2015, 02:31:31 AM

I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately so I can attack it, as that is my primary concern in all of this.

bitofaloserprodogy. lol! good one.

in all seriousness though, I find his position "core plus big blocks is best, but if we can't have that, go with XT" to make sense. what's your position? Keep the 1mb limit?

So we are supposed to have a choice between Bitcoin with larger Blocks, or BitcoinXT with larger blocks. It's not a real choice if you are boxed into to choosing between two equal stupid ideas

You have freedom of choice, between eating the cyanide cake or they cyanide biscuits. Welcome to freedom!!!

My Position is not to worry about it. If I wanted to be part of the "Majority" I wouldn't have an interest in Bitcoin. Bitcoins success is its a protocol that can arrive at agreement between parties that do not trust each other. XT requires us to trust the the list of IP's being filtered will not include ours, ie, it's not a trustless protocol

worrying is what marketing people use to sell stuff, I'm not interested in being consumed by the BS fear mongering that Bitcoin is going to crash because it's too popular.

I mean come on, how can anyone take that argument seriously lol... you have to be a moron to think that it's going to be sooooo popular that it will crash, and yet soooooo dangerous that people will be afraid to use it... but wait, there's more

After that I turn off - Click

You might think that both options are stupid but if you are running a full node or if you are mining Bitcoin then you do have to choose.

"Bitcoins success is its a protocol that can arrive at agreement between parties that do not trust each other." The ability to hard fork in this way represents the process that allows us to arrive at such an agreement.

"XT requires us to trust the the list of IP's being filtered will not include ours, ie, it's not a trustless protocol" This has been shown not to be true many times now, I will say it again. It is a ddos protection method that is only activated when your node is under a DDOS attack, so the alternative to not using the DDOS protection method when under attack is that Bitcoin will not be able to connect to the network. It does not leak IP's and it is disabled by default when connecting through TOR. Furthermore this option is entirely optional, you can turn it off within XT, or even run a version of XT that does not have this feature, or you could even run Core with a BIP101 patch.

"My Position is not to worry about it." If you are running full nodes or if you are mining, such a position is the same as a vote for Core. If the majority of full nodes and miners felt this way we would have one megabyte blocks forever IMHO.