>Unfortunately, one moral imbecile keeps polluting this space.
Indeed.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>Bitcoin does not enjoy nearly the popularity that marijuana and guns do,
Marijuana is an individual activity. Precisely the problem with Bitcoin you
envision, where each one of us could be easily jailed.
Guns are quite different: they have NRA and judging by how successful it is at
fending
>Does this conversation have to happen on-list? It seems to have wandered
>incredibly far off-topic.
How is this off-topic? This a fundamental decision, from which all the other
development decisions follow.
And apparently it's far from settled, with one part pulling in the direction of
>Anyone who doesn't consider governments the proper threat model is either a
>shill or an idiot.
You meant to say "threat". This is what threat model is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_model
Nobody here discounts governments as a threat.
As to the "proper threat model", you can't
>While to many of us that sounds crazy, if you're threat model assumes
>Bitcoin is a legal/regulated service provided by a highly trusted mining
>community it's a reasonable design.
There is a large, grey area all the way to "legal/regulated service provided by
a highly trusted mining
>Your vision of censorship resistance is to become such a strong
>central authority that you can resist it in direct physical confrontation.
>If you succeed at this, you are the threat.
My vision is a strong _decentralized_ system, which is:
a) too important to close,
b) able to provide
>Your argument is that the state is not a threat to a system
>designed to deprive the state of seigniorage, because the state will see that
>system as too important?
Well, if you look at governments from the point of youtube illuminati videos,
then, yeah, I guess my position would seem a bit
>While this topic is very interesting, I do not see how it is
>relevant to a mailing list dedicated to technical and academic debate.
>Please can you take this discussion elsewhere.
Wow. I have Deja Vu. Where have I heard recently that discussing Bitcoin split
is off topic and must be
>I am creating a de-centralized forum, and I mean truly decentralized as I nor
>anyone else will be able to control it.
Zander is working on the same thing: https://www.reddit.com/r/AetheralResearch/
But it's actually quite difficult to make it truly censorship-resistant: both
in solving the
>...so people posting to it will always have a venue to speak without being
>censored.
So is the attacker, who aims to make the place unusable.
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Eric,
FWIW...
These are all good points and I agree with most of them. Yes, the block size
debate is a lucky historical accident, which makes it easier for XT to pull off
the split, but that's not the point.
The point is, the split _must_ happen because the centralized governance of
Bitcoin
Announcing Not-BitcoinXT
https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xt
This version can be used to protect the status quo until real technical
consensus is formed about the blocksize.
...real technical consensus...
You mean the bunch of self-proclaimed Bitcoin wizards, who decided
We should have the highest respect for what these people are doing, and we
should try to do something constructive, not waste time with anger and
disrespect.
Why, exactly, should I have any respect for what these people are doing (and
supposedly not have any respect for what the other side is
Eric,
In the entire history of Bitcoin we've never attempted anything even closely
resembling a hard fork like what's being proposed here.
These concerns are understandable. What's hard to understand is why he, he and
he get to decide what is more risky - hitting the limit or forking for
14 matches
Mail list logo
