Quote from: muyuu on October 23, 2015, 02:43:28 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 23, 2015, 02:38:22 PM

So now you are defining an altcoin as any rule changes that cause bifurcations. Though under this definition if Core hypothetically decreased the blocksize causing a split, under this definition Core would then be an altcoin. Even if Core increases the blocksize in the far future this would also then make Bitcoin Core an altcoin. Surely this example proves that your definition is lacking. Unless you are now taking what I think is the correct position that XT is not an altcoin and you can define it as an "altfork" instead, since I can agree with that definition.

I'm not defining it, read the wiki.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 23, 2015, 02:38:22 PM

I am shocked by you saying this, do you really believe that we should determine what is truth by applying these logical fallacies? I have studied philosophy and politics for most of my life and I can tell you that this is a terrible way to judge truth from falsehood. I urge to study some history and to think for your self.

This is because you don't seem to understand what a fallacy even is. These are unsound arguments for an underlying reality, not something that applies to a subjective definition which is in the process of being settled.

The "wiki" is wrong as I have already demonstrated.

The definition of a word can be whatever you want it to be, as long as we can agree on what this definition is, for the purpose of a specific discussion. You are correct that these definitions are subjective, this subjective definition however should be determined by the free thinking individual. Not the authority or the majority since otherwise language and meaning can be perverted.

The concept of thinking for our self and not accepting the position of the authority or the majority lies at the heart of philosophy and enlightenment thinking. Which brought about the scientific and political revolutions of the modern world, it is the foundation of rationalism and humanism. I mention history because there are many examples where the authority or the majority where wrong, in retrospect the minority is often on the right side of history.

My point being is that these principles do still apply in the way that I was using them. It is always wrong to think that something is true just because that is what the majority or the authority believes. We should think for ourselfs and allow the collective consensus to rise from this foundation instead of just falling victim to group think.