Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 16, 2016, 12:02:26 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 16, 2016, 06:52:15 AM

ROFL. That is so fucking classic! Grin

ToominCoin FTW Roll Eyes

Is that poutrage? From icebreaker?? Grin

Y U always pick loosing side?? Roll Eyes

So when he sided with Core on Core vs XT, he ended up on the loosing side? Makes sense.

Quote from: BitUsher on January 16, 2016, 12:21:56 PM

Whether he is trolling or not a Github pull request is the appropriate place to submit finished code ... not consider.it or slack.
He could have at least waited for all the NACk's to come in, but this does set an interesting example how consensus is formed in Classic.
I am not going to whine about censorship , because the Classic maintainers have every right to close that pull request, but lets not lie to ourselves and suggest that Classic is any more democratic than Core .

Since they are trying to fork the whole system it is a legit move to bring back decentralization. Classic is not any more democratic than Core which is what we've witnessed with the pull request being closed even before it was discussed. They just want people to believe that it is.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 16, 2016, 10:47:43 AM

On the other side you and Lauda seem to fail to understand the other side - the big blockers - and so you built a conspiracy theory about some takeover through "leaders" and "companies" manipulating the markets. The truth may be more simple:
-snip-

There's no conspiracy theory. All I'm saying is that they are trying to take over the "power" from Core and this is exactly what is going to happen if Classic does take off. SegWit is much better than a 2 MB block size increase; it will result in a equal amount (increase wise) in addition to carrying some other (very) important benefits along with it. If their intentions are pure, why would they want to fork at a lower consensus threshold (60-70%)? If their intentions were pure they would not even consider anything under 90+% knowing that this would harm the system.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on January 16, 2016, 10:47:43 AM

More reasons for the economy to loose faith in core:
- luke-jr prefers to lower the blocklimit
- peter todd doublespending coinbase
- core denies to some part that there even is a problem with reaching capacity limit ("it's just spam" / "so fees have to raise"), while such an event will significantly limit the growth of nearly all bitcoin companies and make it impossible for many to even get ever profitable
- the defenders of core's decision act "strange" (ddos, censorship)

Luke is just 1 developer and his viewpoint should not matter that much (only equally as every other contributors). Peter Todd did it in order to prove something; if anyone else did it also for the same reason he would not be attacked. A good amount of transactions today are spam. I acknowledge the other points aside from DDOS & Censorship. At the time of the "XT DDOS" a lot of nodes were under attack, it is just Core's policy not to publicly "panic" each time this happens. The alleged Censorship is debatable as far as reddit is concerned (I can not discuss this as I'm not active there), however no censorship was present on BTCT.

Update:
Corrections to post (more are probably needed).

Update 2:
I was not talking about you.