Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)
The disdain you are showing for Gavin and Mike seems entirely disproportionate and based on your opinion of them rather than their actions. The XT fork is no more dangerous than any other core upgrade *unless* those that oppose core explicitly and deceitfully sabotage it. Yet you argue they are the bad guys.
If you can't see clearly through Gavin & Mike at this point then I really can't help you. Their actions are well documented and provide enough insight into their motives and intentions. The XTfork is dangerous as it turned a technical debate into a political one using populist tactics and propaganda. Yes, they are the bad guys.
You've repeatedly taken up opposition to those who would argue for a block size increase now, claiming its too soon, unneccessary. Arguing about bloat, dismissing any analysis with hypothetical 'centralisation' issues. At the same time have been vary careful to never say you aren't explicitly against a block size increase (a point which you repeatedly remind people of). The nearest thing I have seen to an actual opinion (as opposed to fairly indiscriminate opposition) is that you think 2MB would be ok.
You've never said when, and in particular *why* a particular timescale should be followed. I don't know why you would do this. What are you afraid of? Being disagreed with, being made to look foolish, being actually *wrong* about something?
You've never said when, and in particular *why* a particular timescale should be followed. I don't know why you would do this. What are you afraid of? Being disagreed with, being made to look foolish, being actually *wrong* about something?
I fail to see what problem you have with my position. If you have went over my posts you surely have noticed I mainly entered the debate following the release of XT. If it isn't clear enough that is what I am opposing. That and the equivalent BIP101. Why? Because it is not a sensible proposition and has little legitimate technical backing to support it. If we are to increase the blocksize 800% I expect we should be provided considerable testings and carefully considered justifications. Gavin & Mike failed to provide that. Instead they have resorted to propaganda, fear mongering, false urgency & a battery of half-baked "models" and technology extrapolations. Even worst, they have turned this debate into a divisive governance issue well outside of the actual block size problem.
These are the same guys who tried to push for 20MB based on the previously mentioned broken tests and seeing the clear opposition "compromised" into the 8MB limit because...it's a chinese lucky number!??!?
Some will argue any number is arbitrary. That isn't wrong but there are major differences and I believe Nick Szabo had quite some good reflections about this on Twitter yesterday:
If they are the only options I'll take my chances with XT and the 2 developers who, whilst they may not be perfect, seem to be at least honest about what they are doing.
I'm sorry to hear that. I have a lot of respect for you and equally enjoy reading your thoughts on here but it has become evidently clear by anyone with an hint of deduction that these two are up to no good.