Bitcoin Forum

I am a Hero of Bitcoin, I have been on this forum for almost 3 years, with an older account that I lost before creating this one. In my 3 years of Bitcoin journey I have seen a dramatic shift in the demographics and the political ideology of bitcoin users, and this worries me a lot.

3 years ago this forum used to be very libertarian with tons of good people around here promoting personal and financial freedom ideas, many of these old people are not even active anymore or rarely come online. It was the core of bitcoin users, probably early whales, but also very inspirational people.

Now in since 2014, but definitely since 2015, I have observed the increasing number of leftists on this forum posting nonsense and trying to hijack bitcoin. Now there are 2 kinds of leftist: the trendy leftist & the activist leftist. The trendy one is probably just interested in the technology, and the social aspect, this is ok.

The one I find dangerous is the activist leftist. They are essentially trying to make bitcoin a socialist/communist system through installing a democracy to govern it.

And this can be seen with the whole 2mb block debate (used to be 8mb and so on), but also I've seen several people agreeing to modifying the 21 million limit ,essentially creating a fiat money system to "redistribute wealth". I am not making this up, this is really this bad, these people are literally thiefs, leftists love to shoplift for example, and not just love it, but they actually ideologically promote it (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/). Now I wonder what kind of ideology these bitcoin scammers have, I bet most of them are leftists too.

So we are being invaded by hordes of thieves, and their activism is stronger and stronger, look how many people cry out for banning Theymos or censoring posts on /r/btc subreddit that call them out on their BS.

The left loves censorship & propaganda.

---

What is next? Installing a Pension System into the bitcoin protocol? Automatic wealth redistribution? They would want it all if they could get away with it.

So if you are a wealthy bitcoin holder, you are a primary victim of this. I am not wealthy but I don't want bitcoin to fall into a leftist hellhole because then it will be guaranteed destroyed.

If you hold a lot of coins, this should concern you a lot, the more dumb people come into Bitcoin, the easier is to setup a Democracy, where obviously the majority will outvote you, and your money will get confiscated by them.

So after seeing all the stupid people rush into Bitcoin in the past 2 years, this became very concerning to me, and I fear this is a fundamental risk of bitcoin that nobody talks about.

The left is always cunning and manipulative and their power is in their numbers, they want you to believe that they are your friends but they are not, they just want to steal your money.

Bitcoin should stay ungoverned, but the more leftist join us, the more easy it will be to install a leftist democratic governance on Bitcoin.

---

How is this manifested in Bitcoin?

• Large blocksize = Leftists fail to recognize that a 2mb blocksize renders node operators a huge burden because they actually have to manage their own limited resources
• Whining about big fees = Bitcoin fees are like 10 cent compared to like 4-5% + 5$ at major card company payments, yet they still complain that it's too much and cant make this tiny sacrifice for the benefit of bitcoin
• Wealth redistribution = In altcoins, people constantly while about premine, and would love equal redistribution of coins, and sometimes even extend this to bitcoin as well
• Democratic Bitcoin = they constantly want to push for a democratic governance of bitcoin, whining about Core, and they want to essentially "steal" away the rights from Core (that is their private property) over their property. Also complaining about Blockstream, and inventing bogeyman stories about them.
• Conspiracy theories about Blockstream = yes I saw many people here inventing conspiracy theories about Blockstream and the devs that work for them, this is a classical propaganda tool of the left to discredit good people
• Censorship = this is their favorite tool, just see how many posts have been censored at /r/btc
• Lying to fit the narrative = yes they don't shy away from this too, people have been caught fabricating nonsense statistics about the bitcoin network to push for a hardfork
• 5-year old behavior = when caught in the bullshit, they get angry and turn their back on bitcoin, and start attacking it, for not fitting their personal ideas. They are not loyal to bitcoin if they cant shape it into their worldview, and become enemies of bitcoin very quickly.

---

Democracy is the worst thing that can happen to Bitcoin, that will be the end of Bitcoin


"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." - Lenin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin)

"The goal of socialism is communism." - Lenin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin)

---

So forget about 51% attack risk, and quantum computers, democracy is the biggest enemy of bitcoin!

realbitcoin. many times you have shown you want a dictatorship. you have made your "righty" opinions obvious many times
righty want dictatorship

you love propaganda and fake information always unspins itself and shows your true motives.. you lack understanding of real information and will do anything to try getting bitcoin into a dictatorship
the real funny part is your love of blockstream who are actually wanting to create a system for the bankers/pensions industry.
im not sure where you were planning to bait the libertarians of wanting to do this. but i can foresee you trying to suggest it to hide your real allegiances and desire of such.

im not sure if you have finally jumped off the blockstream boat and seen sense, or your under the delusion that shouting out propaganda that blockstream are gods and their dictatorship is a positive.
but reality shows that blockstream are a dictatorship, which is far worse then a democracy and far worse than a libertarian concept.

i know you want to avoid a democracy, but i feel you will use that buzzword to subtly sway people into your ideal dictatorship, under the pretence its liberty simply by saying "its not democracy"

i have never read a single post from you that makes me feel you are interested in liberty. and no control

if you think your dictatorship ideals is the path to liberty. then i feel sorry for you.

by the way. righties hate libertarian.
Researchers have also said that the Right includes capitalists, anti-communists, conservatives, neoconservatives, neoliberals, nationalists, imperialists, monarchists, fascists, racial supremacists, reactionaries, religious fundamentalists, social authoritarians

so again you really want to have a closed off system that works only for capitalists and has an imperial leader, a king, a religion

you have no clue about decentralized, open, no barrier for entry, libertarian based concepts. you just want FIAT2.0

Blockstream is not a dictatorship, anyone can basically create a wallet and since Core has 91.7% dominance, it shows that people voluntarly have chosen Core:

https://coin.dance/blocks


What I fear is that the left will aggressively push for socialist hardforks either with propaganda, censorship , manipulation, sabotage or other tools that they always like to use.

91% dominance=dictatorship.

where is your libertarian mindset in anything you have just posted. you seem to have posted a pure dictatorship desire. defending blockstream even when using stats that show that blockstream is dominant..

again where is your libertarian ideals??
im even laughing.
first you attack democracy
then you attack socialists
then you attach communists..

but you wont attack dictatorship.
you pretend to be against it by saying that any libertarian, socialist, must be the opposite. but you fail to attack the real dictatorship of the codebases.

there is no single piece of evidence that you want open, decentralized, diverse , no barrier to entry, libertarian ideals.
your just trying to scar people into joining your dictatorship ideals by pretending anything not dictating, must be bad. (hypocrite)

No, dictatoship is imposed by force, this is voluntary ,as I said above.

91% dominance means that Core has proven itself to be the most trusted and reliable software to run the nodes on, and essentially the entire network.

It's not Blockstream's fault that the other wallets are crappy socialist ones that cant compete with Core.

Bitcoin Network always win because of the initial rules and innovation of developpers.

Bitcoin is not the 1%.
Bitcoin is legion.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img537/5737/vxQvDa.gif

1 network is not dictatorship.
you can use many other wallet to use this network.

like all P2P network on the web (work without it, too).

And Bitcoin ... is not skynet.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img921/8616/iILT0v.gif

yes we should diversify and have many different codebases of nodes. that is the libertarian and decentralized mindset i like to see.
but the OP wants one "core" codebase to rule the network.

No it's competition and the winner is Core.

I mean you seriously think something like Knots wallet has any chance of beating Core:
http://bitcoinknots.org/

It has a GAMBILNG SPAM FILTER built in it. That sounds like something taken out of the Communist Manifesto. They just censor any transaction they seem fit, arbitrarly, if it might be connected to gambling. Marx would be proud of them.

So really all other full wallets are a joke.

its should not be a competition..
its should be working side by side to decentralize, and ensure no one controls bitcoin

wait. here we go.. i see your subtle hints.. you are now saying bitcoin IS a democracy (election vote for leader competition) but you prefer it to be a dictatorship, one winner that controls everything?

seriously buy yourself a book that explains political terms.
you still have not shown any proof of libertarian ideals.

if you wanted liberty you would want several different codebases that ensures no one dominates/dictates/centralizes bitcoin.

good luck, but you have failed to sway anyone over to thinking a dictatorship is a libertarian ideology.

You spend too much time online, if you get a life you'll realize none of that insignificant shit you're whining about is meaningful.

Seriously, get a life.

This forum has became very popular. And the rising amount of spam comes with the popularity.
There are paid posters for various reasons everywhere. Some call it guerrilla marketing. That happens for products as well as for ideas, ideologies and politics.
It's known that Russia has its posters and I am sure that others have its own.
Now the elections in US are near and make the things even worse.

But it's only spam. Filter it out and move on, not much else to do.

The left/right isn't a political spectrum, it's a divide and conquer tactic, whereby liberalism gets split into economic liberalism and social liberalism, and then one side is fed arguments about why the other is the source of all problems.

The best approach is to never use the left/right concept, as you're always going to look like a reflexive partisan, one step away from using the non-argument "you're just one of them!"

This is why libertarianism and the various other anarchy inspired political ideologies are popular among Bitcoiners; they appear to be left-right blind, taking ideas from the left or the right as long as they promote liberty.

please don't bring this talk about left or right or religion into bitcoin. it is "just" a way of paying that everybody can use.
bringing bitcoin into these kind of conflicts can cause serious damage, because if they think bitcoin is on way or the other there will be no united front and bitcoin will lose strength.

But there are people there actively working to destroy bitcoin, unconsciously, their stupid ideas will destroy bitcoin if they get implemented.

They push their stupid ideas no matter how insane they sound, and they have big support:  /r/btc

Property rights are an essential part of Libertarian philosophy. And property rights literally are a dictatorship.

Democracy is not an essential part of Libertarian philosophy (free market rules, not politics)



What you've been saying is that the property rights of the people running this business (core Bitcoin developers) should be usurped for the democratic will of the business' customers (Bitcoin users). Not Libertarian, Franky.

It's kind of ironic, because you're trying this with an orgnaisation that provides a service also close to Libertarians hearts: sound money. You're advocating a hostile takeover of a sound money business, and you're actively soliciting customers of the business to support you.

Here's the worst part of all: you're using deception to convince those customers, a violation of the main article of Libertarian faith, the Non-Aggression principle.

So if you're just about done butchering Libertarian principles, any chance of letting people who aren't trolling Bitcoin some space to breathe? Because you talk so much, and yet say so little.

we need to educate not only the non bitcoin people but also the ones using bitcoin. they need to understand it and not only follow blindly some opinions. and if they understand it and still chose a path that leads into destruction then maybe we deserve that.

I dont think you understand the severity of the situation:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/

These are scum people who are actively destroying bitcoin, its as if you bought a brand new car, and your neighbors suddenly start hitting it with dirt and start scratching it, what would you do? Educate them? Hahaha.

No we need to stand up against these evil people and stop being manipulated by them like a bunch of sheeps.

not them but the other people. because if nobody will believe them then they can throw all the shit they want and people will know what to think of that.
i can not stop people from believing in lizard people, but if everybody is educated it doesn't matter as nobody is believing them.

Nothing that happens in the world can be completely isolated from the rest of the world. The identity of anything in the world is the result of the clash of prevailing forces and can never be 100% pure. Bitcoin is no different, its identity is being molded from pressure on all sides. Nothing that anyone can do about it, unless you want to take up arms and try to enforce your ideals  ::)
BTW I don't think democracy is any better than dictatorship, they are both flawed.

Leftist invasion on Bitcoin?! You watch too much movie. Or X-files series. This is just another conspiracy theory based on nothing with the aim to make panic and fear among Bitcoin users.
And if something is published online or in media that doesn't mean it is true.

I'd just wish bitcoin users were intelligent and rational, but even this is too much to ask.

Bitcoin started out very good, with intelligent people leading it, but now more and more dumb people come up with their stupid ideas is concerning to me.

RealBitcoin you are super hero in bitcoin world and in this forum. I am really inspired with your words and I think real people have many role to control bitcoin network. people could destroy or could promote bitcoin so everything depends upon the person's intention.

Look bitcoin is always political, and it will always be. You cannot talk about bitcoin and ignore the fundamental reality. And yes Carlton Banks, it is a foolish idea to fit both left & right ideas into bitcoin, it should be only right.

Look, bitcoin was created against the socialist keynesian fiat banking system, keynesianism is the single most enabler of socialism, it was created by socialists to enable socialism worldwide.

Now every country is pretty much dominated by leftists, and look at the misery , debt and poverty they have caused.


Bitcoin is supposed to be a libertarian tool, by design, anything that is anti-keynesian fiat money, is by default libertarian, nobody can ignore this.


And now if you  start inviting leftists into Bitcoin, they will start making it a fiat money, first by raising blocks, then by raising the 21 million limit.


I mean leftists have clearly a no sense of reality, and they cant comprehend the nature of limited resources, to them a 1 mb block or a 21 million coin limit is an insult.


It's the same people pushing for big blocks, as for pushing higher taxes in your country, you have to realize that bitcoin cannot stay politically neutral or risk being taken over by silly ideas, and that will be the end of it.

fiat was created for capitalists. seems you really are left-right blind

you want dictatorship, capitalism control which is the same as banks.
we shoud however not have a single leader deciding the law of bitcoin.

it should be diverse and open. that no one can be a super power of control.

im not sure if you are naive, or a master of deception to bait and switch people into thinking left is right, good is bad and red is green
but either way, you are failing in this topic because your dictator ideologies are too transparent. which fails you at attempting to drum up some fanboy following of the libertarian crowd. they can see right through your misleading posts.

bitcoin should have no single power house and instead have multiple decentralized hubs which all find some consensual agreement.
by having their own ideologies and then coming to a compromise that fits the majority.

EG no power house forcing 1mb base 4mb weight.
EG no power house forcing 8mb base
EG no power house forcing 2mb base
but compromise of 2mb base 4mb weight. which the consensus mechanism then has a chance of upgrading the rules due to majority approval without dictatorship. so then everyone gets what they want

Money is private property. If a person holds 1000 BTC, he has every right to be in monopoly over that.

If you invide 10 people to outvote him and redistribute his money, that is called theft.

Socialism is just theft, you fail to realize that bitcoin is not a democracy, it's people's money and savings, and that is not subject to democratic vote.

Everyone has a right to his money, and if some people don't allow them that right ,they are called thiefs.

You also have a hard time hiding your communist leanings. I mean what you are advocating is 100% communism.

Democratic vote over other people's money? Explain how that is not communism?

yep you caught me...its true.....

 I am a damn lefty trying to get BTC for use in micro banking in the 3rd world...a store of value as virtual gold in those places of the world with corrumpt banks and goverments
and say 40% plus inflation with their currency...BTC as an eventual method for folks in Africa with a cell phone and gmail say and BTC address to buy stuff off Amazon

yeah surely we are gonna run BTC off the rails with our liberal methods of adoption :)

I also have those goals and I'm not a leftist. Why would you need to be a leftist to have those goals?

I am talking about left totalitarianism over bitcoin like implementing censorship in the nodes, capital controls, manipulated supply ,etc...

read a book
dictatorship. 1 guy/1 group decides the laws and rules with no opposition
communism is all funds belong in single big multisig and people only get some if they ask everyone else nicely that they need it
socialism is funds belong to the people individually. but how and what laws of the community are made are decided by the community as one group
libertarianism is funds belong to the people individually. everyone has different ideas of the laws/rules and they come to a compromise to benefit the majority

you have highlighted your desire for a dictatorship/socialist hybrid.. no where have you shown an ounce of libertarian ideals.
EG
funds belong to the people individually. 1 guy/1 group decides the laws and rules with no opposition

my ideals are
funds belong to the people individually. everyone has different ideas of the laws/rules and they come to a compromise to benefit the majority

by the way you do realise your fanboy rhetorric of loving blockstream is real loud and its blockstream that want to slide in changes without actually needing nodes to vote. but run a fake election to appease the pretence of needing a vote.(softfork)
you do realise that blockstream want to mess with manipulating supply (sideshains/LN's millisat)
you do realise that blockstream want to censor nodes by calling anything not core a bad thing.

wake up!!

lets put this another way.. answer this
are you defecting away from your fanboyism of blockstream dictatorship to become a libertarian?
or
are you putting your head in the sand to remain a fan of blockstream dictatorship and misinterpret everything you see?

Bitcoin transcends politics:


"Right" wins: Bitcoin enabled a sound money system that could not be stolen, confiscated, debased or disrupted

"Left" wins: Bitcoin enabled borderless money, rendering state imposed capital controls or trade tariffs meaningless

"Right" wins: Bitcoin removes Central Banking's monopoly on money supply & interest rates

"Left" wins: Bitcoin disrupted corporate monopoly on multiple types of financial services (investment, loans, gambling etc have all been liberalised)

"Right" wins: Bitcoin enabled all small business owners access to all the worldwide markets that large businesses do (and the cheap financial services fees that previously only larger businesses could access)

"Left" wins: Bitcoin enabled safer marketplace for illegal contraband that doesn't generate victims



It goes on and on.

If you cannot understand how "Left" has both Bad and Good aspects (as does "Right"), and that all apply equally to either Bitcoin or any other topic, then don't expect many to take your entrenched position seriously.

I agree that the number of leftists / socialist retards has grown significantly in this forum. The ideas promoted by these people pervert the original motive for Bitcoin's creation: to increase monetary freedom.

Whatever ideological justification these people offer for their dictatorial plans, the underlying motive behind ideas like "equal distribution" is crystal clear. It's personal greed. These people were not among the pioneers of Bitcoin or even rejected it in the first place. Now that Bitcoin is substantially de-risked and has become successful they want to own more.

It's no surprise that many bigblock-fanatics and well known trolls like franky1 are also socialists, because they share the common goal of destroying freedom and individual responsibility.

ya.ya.yo!

By leftists you mean socialists,i guess.

Perhaps 90% of all bitcoin users are poor people,and the poor people are mostly socialists.

This isn`t something bad.Everyone has it`s own opinion and it`s own ideas.

But you're the one whining like a bitch...

BTW bosses already decided what they will do, why are you still bitching about bigger blocks?

I totally agree with this logic. However you have to remember how man got to be king of the jungle, a single man cannot take down a lion but a group of men can. Man obeys no moral code, he simply takes what he wants and makes up any lame excuse for it. Today we're living in an urban jungle, man has conquered all of his foes except one, himself. And he's already started work on that last one.  

dictatorship is not individual responsibility. it destroys individual responsibility by letting one person/group dictate the rules
libertarianism is not destroying individual responsibility. .. libertarianism is literally allowing individual responsibility..

its a shame that you are soo confused.
by the way its the blockstream dictators that want big blocks. (4mb weight)
i have always had the libertarian mindset of compromise. which 2mb was a compromise. even 2mb bas 4mb weight is a compromise.

but you and other blockstream fanboys want the dictatorship

im still facepalming at how the blockstreamers want dictatorship but pretend anything not a dictatorship(the opposition) must be dictators.
its like a black person joining the KKK saying they are not black and they hate blacks. but just looking at them can easily see they are black

I think it's really important to agree what we mean when we're talking about these especially contentious words (i.e. "left", "right", "socialism", "liberalism" etc).


Left != socialist. This is what's so nasty and insidious about the left/right dialectic, it blurs what should be harder dividing lines between the true political camps (the left-right division serves only as a form of meta-politics, to disrupt meaningful political debate by making it about labels instead of issues)


Left can be Socialist. Or Communist, even. But it also offers the original Classical Liberalism, which has none (or little) of the authoritarian wealth redistribution aspects of Socialism. And that's where all the thinking that produced Anarchism and Libertarianism originated from.

So, let's not write-off the "left" for being communists, any more than a self-described leftie might write us off as fascists. If RealBitcoin's views got much traction, Bitcoin might end up being condemned as "RacistCoin" by The Guardian, lol

Except that these are not left wing ideas, they are right wing ideas that have been hijacked by leftists.

Capital controls are violating private property rights ,so they are not right wing.

Corporate monopoly is not good, certainly free market is preferable, which is again libertarian.

I also think many people would prefer legalization of plants, after all they are just plants.

So the ideas is freedom, yes freedom does transcend left/right, but the left doesnt bring any freedom to us, except gulags and poverty.


No , poor =/=  socialist.

Most people are poor, but they still want to work hard and want their work respected by not stealing 50% of their income from them.

Poor people would want to go up the ladder, but guess who is keeping them down with 50% taxes?


Ok but hunting down a lion by a group of 10 people and sharing the loot is not the same as:


People creating bitcoin, people working hard on it, and then new people join and they want to steal the benefits of it for their personal gain.

That's like if those 10 people hunted down the lion, and another 1000 people come to steal the loot.

"realbitcoin" your a hypocrite

hypocrisy one:
with one hand he say corporate monopoly is bad
with another hand he says competition is bad..

hypocrisy two:
with one hand he says freedom (freedom is having no barriers of entry)
with another hand he says its an invasion(invasion is deciding certain people are not allowed in)

hypocrisy three:
with one hand he says individual ownership
with another hand he says loves the idea of moving everyone to duel signing authorisation of LN and sidechains and liquid alts

hypocrisy four:
with one hand he says dont steal 50%
with another hand he says fee war is good

Have you checked Tumblr?

I heard they have safe spaces there...

You're trying to take over a privately owned sound-money business, Franky, not a public institution. So you don't get any freedom to vote on the business, because the Bitcoin project is not your property. Your BTC are your property. Understand yet? lol

earlier i thought carlton was wearing a libertarian hat, (yes even i was positively surprised)

but in the last hour, carlton has now changed clothes and is wearing the same hat as "realbitcoin".

bitcoin is not a BUSINESS its a open monetary system. i just want blockstream to not monopolise and control it and turn an open monetary system into a dictating business

seems you have lost your libertarian mindset in the last hour.. what happened? something you ate or smoked or was the initial libertarian mindset in earlier posts today just a bait, and now your showing the switch

but to address the point your trying to make.
mining is not the devs 'business' yet the community and devs persuaded that 51% mining dominance was bad.
same should be said about the diversity of nodes too

we should not have dominant control of block creation by one entity just as much as we shouldnt have domination of consensus by one entity doing changes without opposition.

it should be open consensus where agreements and compromises are made by a diverse combinations of nodes who find an equal and fair level that the majority agree with
and not a 'follow like sheep into the woods where the wolves live, because its the sheep's job to only follow blindly to feed the wolves'

There is no corporate monopoly over bitcoin, and competition is good, I am not sure where you get that from, I have never said such contradictory things.




No, no barriers of entry is good but only in the context of private property.

Is it good if people enter in your property without permission? I'd say no, so yes joining bitcoin is free, but it comes with no special rights or privileges.

Only the owners of bitcoin should have a say.




Sidechains will become in some ways more robust, but it will need a solid basis, that is why the protocol should be unchanged.



That makes no sense.

Bitcoin's design is a meritocracy, not a democracy (another aspect of Libertariansim you're glossing over). If it was, then the majority can be predicted to choose something foolish. I think we all know by now that getting an ignorant majority to make a foolish choice is what you're angling for.

If you think your ideas are good, propose them to the Core developers. Let me tell you, your ideas are destructive and dangerous, the devs already know, and you will be ignored.

Or, (and I've never heard a reply to this point) CODE UP YOUR BITCOIN KILLER AS A NEW CRYPTOCURRENCY. There is nothing stopping you, except owning masses of this new cryptocurrency that solved all Bitcoin's problems, oh and you'd be a total Satoshi style cypher-punk hero, right? ::)

That's Libertarianism Franky, the developers legitimately control the codebase, because it's theirs. Stop trying to steal/disrupt other people's work, get a real job.

LOL i highlighted your mindset of corporate business dictatorship

core(blockstream) should only control core.. they should not control the entire financial system known as bitcoin.
EG Barclays controls Barclays bank branches that use the pound. they should not control the pound
barclays is free to make its own "pingit" app to make transfers faster.. but emphasis. not control the pound
EG Lloyds controls Lloyds bank branches that use the pound. they should not control the pound
Lloyds is free to make its own mobile app to make transfers faster.. but emphasis. not control the pound

your mindset is that barclays should control the pound and Lloyds should F off and make a new currency.

wake up!

oh and there is a subtle reason i used barclays as the example of wanting to control the currency. it involved the blockstream funding and partnerships.

No, I'm saying the Bank of Satoshi should control Bitcoin, and the Bitcoin Barclay's out there (i.e. the users in the "be your own bank" system lol), like you suggest, don't control
Bitcoin. Exactly how it is, and how it always has been ::)

Again, seeing as you're a coding genius that thinks in binary code (lol): CODE UP YOUR BITCOIN KILLER AS A NEW CRYPTOCURRENCY. There is nothing stopping you, except owning masses of this new cryptocurrency that solved all Bitcoin's problems, oh and you'd be a total Satoshi style cypher-punk hero, right?

Why would you want to change the "doomed" Bitcoin dictatorship system when you could fix all the problems and get rid of the dictators, huh? Answer the question

The interesting aspect that is coming through for me reading the replies you give,is you seem to see this issue as very black and white. Those that are not in agreement are dumb and left leaning.
This is actually more scary than what you are worried about in my eyes and perception is really all we have.
Also think you have a issue of seeing commies everywhere and in turn they show up everywhere you look. The right are still active you just need to go deeper into conversations to see that bitcoin offers a stage for all people.

If you're in favour of competition and a free and open market, then how do you square that with the rampant protectionism going on in the community right now?  Protectionism can be defined as actions or policies that restrict or restrain external competition.   Core is seen as the "native" code, which some people feel has to be protected or shielded from any outside, external developers, working on their own implementations.  If competition is good, you should welcome more alternative clients.

Also, if were are going to head down the route of corporate entities paying developers, many would feel more comfortable if there were a greater number of corporate entities involved.  As things stand right now, how many companies are directly paying developers?  I'm only aware of five main contributors: Blockstream, MIT, Chaincode Labs, Ciphrex, and BTCC.  And two of those, Chaincode Labs and Ciphrex, are companies run *by* developers themselves, so I'm not even sure that counts.  They're basically self-funded coders.  So it's certainly not a monopoly, but it's not exactly diverse either.

But Bitcoin development is not a free and open market, it is an individual participant in a free and open market.

That means that the project is not some kind of public institution. You have a right to choose which coin, but not to tell the coin devs what to do with their coin. Design your own coin.


And you have designed your own coin! But what's so wrong with your coin, that it can't compete with Bitcoin as a coin in it's own right? I thought you claimed it was a better coin?

I do not see left & right people here, but I diverse bunch of people interested in the same technology, but for different reasons. The whole

bitcoin network, are in a way built on a democracy principle, where the public vote with their choices and the majority rules. Politics are

clearly shown, with the big block & small block propaganda being spread. I am lovin it.  ;D

bank of satoshi, lol seriously.. CORE is not bank of satoshi.

CORE popped onto the scene in 2013

core has not been around since 2009, gmaxwell has not been around since 2009, adam back has not been around since 2009.
you really need to do your research better and realise core did not invent bitcoin

and the second part of your post. saying to take down a dictatorship is not to remove their control, but to invent a new country(land analogy) and hope people leave the dictatorship for a new country.
OMG your that deluded..

hmm so dont remove ISIL from syria, instead set up asylum camps in another country and hope all syrians move out of syria.. is that your idea??

wake up

seriously wake up

Answer the question Franky.



If Bitcoin Unlimited, or whatever cryptocurrency design you prefer, is such a good design, why can't it withstand the actual marketplace, as it's own coin?

Why wouldn't you savvy crypto investors want a chance to be first to invest in the king of crypto, without any of the evil Bitcoin dictators? Hmmmm?

because i believe in bitcoin more then you.
you have proven you prefer to systematically screw with bitcoin until your leaders alt becomes famous. so instead of asking me to make an alt, i prefer to make people aware of blockstream and their fanboys tactics, to try keeping bitcoin away from 100% control and hope blockstream skip off to their altcoin sooner then they planned.

syria analogy again
carlton wants. ISIL(blockstream) to take over syria(bitcoin) and destroy it and then go live in lybia, lebenon and other countries (monero/liquid/sidechain)
i prefer to fight ISIL(blockstream). ignore their pathetic claims that they own syria(bitcoin) and ensure syria remains free for the innocent people there

you really need to wake up

No, not Syrians, Bitcoin.


Why can't your favourite design for a crypto currency stand on it's own 2 feet?

Why won't you invest in your favourite design? It's irrelevant whether it's called Bitcoin or not. Surely you want well designed sound money, not money called Bitcoin? ???

If you elect to take part in a closed source project, then you are freely agreeing that the dev team are ultimately in control and have the final say on every aspect of the code.  Like it or not, that simply isn't the case here.  Bitcoin is open source.  It's undeniably a free and open market because alternative clients are right now competing for both hashrate and node count, anyone can modify the code at will, without permission, and users are free to decide on what code they choose to run.  It's the absolute epitome of freedom and liberalism.  

If you can't handle that, maybe Bitcoin is not what you thought it was.  I, for one, love it.  

It's gotta be a pretty sad day when one of the people the OP perceives as a filthy, commie lefty has a greater appreciation for a free and open market than the OP does.   ;D

OP thinks the market can be co-opted and needs protectionism to save it.  I trust the market to regulate itself.

If that was true, how did unknown or new developers ever get their code into Bitcoin? Answer: they wrote good code. It may be open source, but that doesn't mean anyone can change the original, far from it.

Original code can be forked, but trying to argue that a software network is the same thing as the code base is mindless stuff.

The code repo (and every other code repo) is private property. Only certain people have access. That's a working definition of what property actually is. But the Bitcoin network is openly accessible by anyone. Why are you confusing the two so consistently?

Your argument essentially says that any 5 year old with a GitHub account should be able to change the code. Not. The. Case. There is a peer review process, and the contingent you're cheerleading for got drubbed in that peer review process, because their suggestion were (likely deliberate) garbage.

The meritocracy has spoken, and your team's ideas didn't make it. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

It is decentralized dude. No one can invade bitcoin. (I don't know what are the devs' political views though) Leftists cant invade a shit anyway, they will just talk and talk and talk over useless craps and soon they will forget what they were arguing for and will fight themselves.

not sure if carlton is just trolling because he doesnt own any bitcoin so doesnt care what happens to bitcoin...
or
if he really has been spoonfed so much that he has gone full sheeple follower of blockstream

Nope, sorry to all the protectionist apologists out there, but I see no mention in the licence about the code being private property.  Anyone is free to modify the code.  It's all there in black and white for those who aren't blinded by their own agendas.

The place were the code is published is private. Not the code itself.

If the code was private, it couldn't be open sourced, that's called proprietary code. Good luck with winning any future arguments with cheap semantic tricks ::)

ooooh so github now own bitcoin.. not the community, not the devs, not blockstream not even satoshi.. but github owns bitcoin?
hmm lets check that out


care to bait and switch some more until the hole your digging is so deep your cant escape?

Nope, Github are the repo platform, not the repo itself.

Your trolling is terrible, and you never have a substantive argument, your only recourse is always to distort or subvert the truth as your rhetoric. That's why you're losing, because you're selling a lie.

If you want to have an entirely separate argument about what Core do with their code, you're more than welcome to.  They are free to publish whatever code they wish and no one is in a position to stop them.  They are also free to accept or deny code contributions from any individual and no one is in a position to stop them.  In fact, I'm pretty sure we agree on that part.  

But the argument you originally made is that Bitcoin is not a free and open market.  This is disproven by the simple fact that there are competing Bitcoin protocols right now.  Anyone is free to release their own implementation of the Bitcoin client with any modifications they so choose.  If the market decides overwhelmingly that the modified code is superior, that's the code Bitcoin then adopts.  It's beautiful.  I wouldn't change it for the world.  

did you not read the terms of github.. i pasted it in the last post.

Carefully worded, but not a true description of what's really happening.

Describing the fork clients as "competing" protocols implies there might be room for whichever protocol loses the competition. You know as well as I that there is no 2nd and 3rd place if you fork the Bitcoin network to a different protocol, so it's a zero sum game. This is not equivalent to a free market competition, as there is only one bed to sleep in. It's equivalent to a majority led compulsory purchase order "not your house any more, get out". Your argument is wrong, it does not observe the free market or property rights.

If you were really interested in an actual free market, you'd be arguing for a scenario that actually conforms to free market dynamics. Stealing someone else's project doesn't count.

carlton wants dictatorship so that only the dictator agrees to their own rules in a circle jerk and then changes things without consent.

carlton never thinks about real consensus and a community compromise, you know real consensus. where it is not one or the other but general agreement of the rules by the majority.

carlton has lost the libertarian mindset (though im starting to think he never had it).. each day he digs a hole a little deeper and cant back up his points.
even the copyright and patent arguments he tried suggesting failed him.

cant wait for his next bait and switch argument to dig himself a little deeper
carlton you love the capitalist, corporate control of a money system. so go play with fiat. you will be happier living a 100% fiat lifestyle

Maybe you could address just one point in my post, instead of none of them? That's a real winning argument there Franky, one that bears no relation to what the other party said? ???

Um, yeah. Maybe you should try harder, I know I've ripped on you for trying too hard in the past, but that's not even C grade for you Franky

i did address it. heck i went back and emboldened underlined it to show where your
" You know as well as I that there is no 2nd and 3rd place if you fork the Bitcoin network to a different protocol, so it's a zero sum game. "
falls apart

its not a game of 1 winner. its a game of diverse teams that should discuss and debate what needs to change and come to a majority compromise they are all happy with. this prevents a dictatorship and instead keeps the decentralized CONSENSUS, which has been rule one of bitcoins ethos

trying to claim bitcoin has always been a dictatorship and has never had consensus is your failing. but i can see why you try to assume it.. because you want a dictatorship

ill say it one more time CONSENSUS should never be baited and switched to dictatorship. otherwise bitcoin is no better than fiat

the early libertarian types are to busy selling their thousands of bitcoin to have time to be on this forum,  and the other point about increasing the total supply has got next to no support if any at all..... :o

If there is a fork, the "losing" side is free to join the new consensus and propose revisions of their own from there.  Protocols can perpetually compete assuming developers don't decide to pursue a new, incompatible chain and create an altcoin.  You know, that thing you're currently encouraging developers of alternative clients at the moment to do.  It's not "stealing someone else's project", as the developers of alternative clients are simply publishing code.  There's no identifiable act of theft within that process.  Also, it's stated on just about every Bitcoin related resource that no company or individual is in control of Bitcoin.  Ergo, you can't seize control of something that no one directly controls.  Ultimately it's up to the miners and node operators as to whose code governs the protocol.  

Also, it's irrelevant whether you agree with me or not, because it's not going to change the fact that we have a free and open system where anyone can modify the code as they see fit and users are free to run whatever code they want.

It is a game of 1 winner, you can't have competing consensus rules running simultanously, because no system can operate using 2 sets of competing rules. Duh.


Franky "Daaaaaaaad, can I have Bluuuuuuue Power Ranger for Christmas?"
FrankyDad "no you little turd, your Mother and I have already reached a consensus on this"
Franky "But Daaaaaaaaad, consensus means a disagreement!"

LOL epic fail
"you can't have competing consensus rules running simultanously"

yet, there are already many implementations running right now.

go play with fiat and marry banker. you really do not understand bitcoin

Well, that's the end of your argument, isn't it.

Because several attempts have already been made to release code that, okay, doesn't steal the project, but destroys the network the project runs on, in favour of a re-designed network. And the XT attempt included code to prevent future hard forks that weren't Hearn approved. And no-one bought the premise that either of those protocol redesigns offered something valuable, and so the fork didn't happen.



As for your more desperate point ("pursue a new, incompatible chain and create an altcoin"), pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

We both know it's a soft fork. We both know that means the chain is compatible, and certainly not new, it's the same chain. We both know that this means old clients can use old features, but not new ones. Hmmmmm, it's almost as if every other soft fork that's been activated has those properties, and Segwit is no different.

So, your argument is fine, as long as you agree that Bitcoin is now on something like it's 6th or 7th incompatible altcoin reiteration, lol. Which means your point is invalid, as soft-forking changes have happened many times already without incident.

Those implementations aren't running their changed rules on the actual Bitcoin network. They're running with Bitcoin Core rules. They could run their own rules, if they were actually on a separate network. But they're not, they're on the Bitcoin network.

And I'll stand by the market making that decision.  But you have to stand by the fact that the market could make a different decision in future and that Core's implementation may not always be the consensus.  Or admit you're a protectionist apologist.  One of the two.   :P



Wasn't even talking about Segwit.  I was alluding to your recent posts along the lines of this one:

and again in this very thread:
You keep suggesting developers of alternative clients should pursue their own chain because you're terrified of a little competition on this one.  I'm suggesting that post fork, all developers are welcome to tag along, follow the longest chain and keep releasing their own clients, that, while compatible with the new consensus, can still propose changes to the rules of the network.  Post fork (whether soft or hard), it's not a zero-sum game if dev teams are willing to carry on competing.  Free and open.  Glorious.

Don't you think it may suit your free-market rhetoric better if I was allowed to choose from a range of options that aren't narrowly defined for the benefit of your argument?

And your "and I'll stand by the market's decision" comment is just dripping with conceit. You know as well as I do that XT and Classic were about control of the repo, not about some technical design dispute.


Why would anyone need to compete with Bitcoin on it's own chain if their coin is better?

Why don't you believe in a real competition, you know, where there are more than 2 players on the court playing simultaneously? Ever seen a tennis match where one player serves an ace to the other, and the match is immediately declared won?

You're suggesting that the Bitcoin user base bets the farm on an untested codebase, never operated in the wild, running an entire economy? Can you see why a rational Bitcoin user wouldn't be interested in experimenting like that? ::)

It might just be a more rigorous approach to never bet on contentious forks, and just bet on promising altcoins instead. Because if the market makes a poor choice of fork, that altcoin is going to be all you've got left.

im laughing at the hypocrisy.

other implementations have code available since last year..
even today core doesnt have live segwit code today.

real segwit code has not been running on bitcoin mainnet.
yet many implementations have been running 2mb block rule on bitcoin mainnet since last year
2mb implementations dont force blocks over 1mb. they instead accept blocks under 2mb. meaning all blocks 0byte-999kb are acceptable too

also carlton you are confusing a contentious fork with a consensus fork.
no one has proposed a contentious fork. every implementation has proposed a consensus fork. so why are you even trying to suggest contentious forks are what the debate is about.

contentious fork and consensus fork are two different things.. please research. please learn or please go back to fiat.
we already know you want to increase the number of minable units, extending mining completion from the year 2141 to atleast the years 2181. so how about you go play around with monero and mess with moneros rules.. with your friends you are loyal too.

afterall if you feel you have the right to tell others to go away, then we have the right to tell you the same too.

but anyway your post are scraping the bottom of the barrel and really running dry of valid points. so its time to just move on. i cant see you adding anything valid to this topic.

have a good day

Maybe, but I suspect anyone reading this will have decided for themselves already.   ;D

At least the OP is clearly willing to openly profess their protectionist apologist tendencies.  You seem to be in denial.  



You're welcome to question why anyone would need to compete with Core on the current chain, but it's not my place to answer.  Some people want to and they're entirely free to do so.  Are you saying you don't want them having that right?  Would you willingly take away their freedom to do it if you could?  If so, it doesn't strike me as very liberal of you.

Having code available isn't any good if no-one on the network you're trying to hijack is willing to let it happen. If alternatives are running 2MB block rules, where are all the 2MB blocks?

Oh that's right, Core is the network, and those competing protocol clients run Core's rules. That means they can't run their rules on the Bitcoin network, as they've can't make valid blocks to apply the rule to. And they've never been tested on a 10 billion dollar economy, but they have been tested in Franky's basement room testnet, connected up to a handful of others, lol

You seem to be being provocative for it's own sake, which is a working definition of internet trolling.


It is your place to answer, you're the person I asked. And your poetic tinged bohemianist smoke-screen isn't altering the fact that you are avoiding the question because you don't like the answer.

And people are, of course, entirely free to do all sorts of foolish things. Free choices are not necessarily good choices.

Blame the mining giants, like most do these days. According to the West, every bad thing in Bitcoin is linked to the Chinese.

"The socialist market economy is the economic model employed by the People's Republic of China. It is based on the dominance of the state-owned sector and an open-market economy, and has its origins in the Chinese economic reforms introduced under Deng Xiaoping."

I only see : Capitalism

"Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets."

Then I apologise for my lack of psychic powers, because I can't guarantee a correct answer.  The obvious response would be that the people releasing competing protocols are dissatisfied with the product as it currently stands and feel they have the superior code.  You tend to proclaim, however, that the intent is hostile and it's simply a power grab.  Personally, I don't buy that, because again, you can't seize control when there's no one in control to seize it from.  The miners and node operators are ultimately responsible for securing the network.


Huzzah!  So we're in agreement that alternative clients have the right to exist and are free to compete on the current chain, even if you don't personally agree with what they represent.  I withdraw my previous accusation, then, you're not a protectionist apologist like the OP.

Let's debate, among WHO should a consensus be reached.

If I understand you correctly, you say among EVERYONE, where each individual has an equal voting right. With that, I disagree. Consensus should be reached among economic majority. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Should individuals, having a bigger economic impact, have a bigger say? By all means, yes. --> this is not a democracy. It's anarcho-capitalism. (which Satoshi, being a crypto-anarchist, was close to in thinking).

Does that mean, only one version of bitcoin software? No. Always more versions, but the fact remains, that for the system to work, one software needs to prevail, and heavily.


This is how I think the system was set up: The miners choose the firmware, that best represents the interests of the economic majority. If miners would choose the firmware that represents the choice of equal weighted bitcoin user voices, that would be a democracy. And that would be BAD.

Should the body of bitcoin core decision makers be unified and only one software allowed? Hell NO. Centralization represents everythig, the bicoin is against!

Haughtiness is not a requirement, all you needed to do was read the question.


Makes no sense, you are failing to answer the question, as I expected. If you don't like what's happening with the Japanese Yen, sell. Don't attempt a hostile takeover of the Bank of Japan.


You're deliberately conflating control of the network with control of the code base, to derail discussion of this aspect of reality you dislike. Why should I debate with someone who can't keep their arguments honest?


Right. I extend my previous accusation: you're shilling for hostile takeovers, using specious or dishonest arguments. Is this how you always get what you want in life?

one software doesnt need to prevail and decisions should not be based on the economic majority.
lets explain:
economic majority.
day one coinbase has NO coins. day two 500,000 people deposit 1btc each into coinbase.
day 3. the people have no vote. coinbase has a vote to a total of 500,000 out of ~16m right now (3.1%)

is it fair that a corporation has 3.1% and each customer does not even have 0.00000625% each, but instead no vote at all. due to coinbase having the funds under coinbase keys?? so coinbase does the deciding

having more money is meaningless. the amount of funds someone has, has no relevance to the diversity, distribution and security of the blockchain.
eg satishi himself has over 800k bitcoins. yet he runs no nodes, no miners and has no impact on bitcoins security right now. he has not been involved since before 2011. emphasis: he has no impact on protecting bitcoin as it stands now.

P.S: dont get me wrong if it was based on economics i would have more votes then many people. but that does not mean its a fair excuse to change security, diversity, distribution. because funds does not secure bitcoin.. nodes and mining does.

consensus compromise
todays proposed consensus.
    core wants 1m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit
      BU wants variable base 16 critical limit
      XT wants 2mb base 32 critical limit
classic wants 2mb base. 32 critical limit

while no majority is established they can all run at the same time because the current 1mb rule fits all proposals because under 1mb data is accepted by them all.
none of these proposals are a controversial fork, all proposals are consensual.

they all want something to change. so its not about killing off all proposals and then have one king. its about compromise by coming to a consensus.
EG BEFORE december 2015 it was
   core wanted 1mb base 32 critical limit
     BU wanted variable base 16 critical limit
     XT wanted 8mb base 32 critical limit
classic wanted 8mb base. 32 critical limit

EG AFTER december 2015 it was
   core wanted 2m base 32 critical limit
     BU wanted variable base 16 critical limit
     XT wanted 2mb base 32 critical limit
classic wanted 2mb base. 32 critical limit

and the compromise was 2mb base. where IF everyone actually coded this compromise everyone would be on the same level, and there would be majority acceptance of 2mb with no disruption once the majority of nodes upgraded to their favourite brand of that consensus

we thought core would after agreeing to this, would finally write an implementation so that the 2mb can go into affect.
but then they decided to throw a spanner in the works.

instead of segwit 2mb base 4mb weight to stick to consensus while also offering segwit. they back tracked to 1mb again
with
   core wanting 1m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit

which core now wants to become a dictatorship by killing off the other implementations so they dont have to compromise and dont have to uphold their initial agreement.

which is lame because they pretend in a year or so to "maybe" implement: 2m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit, but they want to kill off the competition that is holding up their: 1m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit

the even funnier part is.
users, nodes, merchants, miners never had a single say via economics or node count that 1m base 4mb weight is the desire in 2015.
instead they went on a R3KT campaign to make sheep jump into the wolves mouths by prtending the wolves were in the other direction. (ye core devs are funded by R3 too)

in short all core need to do is make 2m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit and then ALL implementations have what they want and core also gets segwit. with no dictatorship.

due to consensual compromise

All the things that exist in the bitcoin is something that gives good impact for us who know their knowledge. But if we don't do something a good thing then it will all give you a bad impact for us, because we can offer you something bitcoin a bad thing if done so in a way that carelessly

Your explanation is wrong. Economic majority is represented by those, who are transferring btcs, e. g. doing business. Not just hodling - that doesn't create economy (not that it's wrong to hodl per se). Miners are rewarded by those who make transactions.

The problem in your seek of consensus are chinese miners. They will have to either grow their bandwith or go home. Trouble is, this will not happen through night.

I'm not the one conflating things.  Core developers are in control of the code in their own github.  Nothing more.  They are not in control of the original code released by Satoshi under the MIT Licence.  Nor are they in control of the concept of Bitcoin in perpetuity.  Core developers will always be in control of their own github.  A fork to a competing protocol doesn't hand control of Core's github to outside developers. Whether a fork happens or not is determined by miners and node operators, so a hostile takeover by developers is not possible.  All developers can do is release code.

Further to that, the latest version of Core's software is still released under the same MIT licence, which means the Core developers themselves are happy for people to modify their code.  Clearly, though, it doesn't mean they are happy for anyone to submit any modified code to Core's own github and consider it part of Core's client without their consent.  Core maintain ownership of that repository and decide who can and cannot contribute code, which is perfectly acceptable.  So the only option for people wishing to modify the code, is to release their own clients.



I got the impression we had reached an agreement.  I'll give you the opportunity to clarify your position, just to be sure.  I asked if you would willingly take away the right of other developers to release their own code if you could.  You replied "people are, of course, entirely free to do all sorts of foolish things", which leads me to assume that, while you might personally deem it foolish, you wouldn't restrict their freedom to do it.  Ergo, alternative clients are free to exist and compete.  Yes or no?

no
the block reward is the miners payment. and miners can accept or reject any transaction they like.
heck i can make a Tx that has a 2000btc fee. but it can be rejected for many reasons and has no way of swaying a miner to make protocol changes even if they accepted it.

peoples funds and network protocol are separate things.

also the fee does not mean anything. many pools have already made blocks this year with just 1tx (the block reward), many pools have already made blocks this year ignoring certain transactions that are bloated even with a higher fee..

Original question:


Unfortunately for you, here's the evidence of your shit talking.

I ask a question about in-chain protocol competition.

You go on to answer (in bold also) a completely different question, because you couldn't come up with a lie that could be related to the question I asked. So quit pretending you've got me on the defensive, you're the one manipulating and lying

Selective quoting aside, I did just say that the only option for people wishing to modify the code, is to release their own clients.  How is this not clear?  It's precisely because the Core developers are in control of their own repository and decide which code will and won't be included, that means people who wish to publish their own code, because they have different ideas which Core developers may not agree with, have literally no other choice than to release a competing protocol.  If they can't work together because they disagree, they have to compete.  Do you agree they are free to do that?  Yes or no.

Stop trying to change the subject.

So far we've had multiple attempts to strawman me, misquote or mis-attribute, and now you're trying to get me to agree to long meandering paragraphs written by your own fair hand?

You're hilarious. Is this how you always get what you want in life, lying and deceiving? How do you satisfy the need to behave this way in the flesh? You must be a little short on friends, who in their right mind would want to talk to someone who just lies relentlessly in the hope of getting their own way.

You know what's funny? You must spend god knows how long crafting your trolling bullshit masterpieces. Do you know how long it takes me to think up my reply to your garbage? I think you do.

What sort of a life do you lead, DooMAD, where this sort of thing pays your bills and gives you kicks? You're a bit of a reprehensible human, aren't you?

What subject are you even reading?  It's quite simple.  I'll even leave you out of it entirely if that helps:

If anyone would choose willingly to restrict or deny the freedom of people to modify and release code in a competing protocol, it's because they don't trust the free and open market to regulate itself.  How can I make that simple concept any clearer?  

I trust the free and open market.  Alternative clients are free to exist and compete.  That is my stance.  What's yours?  I can't strawman, misquote or mis-attribute if you simply tell us what your opinion on this matter actually is.

This is stirring smoke, miners tend to unite in pools, they get block rewards and fees are expected to slowly get a little bigger. And they could reject transaction, but no one does it without a really serious reason (or just noone does it), because they lose money. Ability of miners to reject transactionns has nothing to do with their incentive to enable transactions to earn money. You are totally moving the target.

Look I'm dropping out, let the readers decide who is right.

My opinion is several pages back. There's no way I'm going to give a yes or no answer to whole paragraph of statements from someone who is a proven liar/manipulator.

Yes, competition is good, but we have to be careful.

Bitcoin is not a lab experiment with rats, it has 10 billion market cap and a whole new economy depending on it. We cannot affort to skrew it up.

So yes Core deserves some protectionism, by the big bitcoin whales themselves, so its totally legitimate.

If 90% of bitcoin owners favor Core, then that is totally legitimate, because the big money is what counts here. Bitcoin is private property, and if the majority of the money decides 1 path, that is our wish.

I tend to look at Bitcoin as a corporation , because it is essentially that, an unincorporated global corporation, where multiple wealth owners decide our common route that is best for our wealth.

So bitcoin is not a sunday chess club where you can have any form of governance you wish. We are talking about 10 billion dollars here that are jointly owned by all bitcoin owners, and the final word should always be with the majority of the money.

Nodes dont matter, miners dont matter, it's what the 50% +1 percent of the market cap wants matters!

No, that is keynesian nonsense again.

I cannot believe academics are so dumb to eat this keynesian nonsense.


The people that hold/hoard/store wealth are the most important people for the economy. Inactive wealth is not irrelevant, it is what gives value to the wealth that is spent.

If everyone is spending then the value of currency drops, if everyone is hoarding then the value of the currency rises. So it is preferable if nobody is spending, although then the economy doesnt grow.

Therefore many economists suggests that a 50% savings 50% spending ratio is optimal, so that there is enough capital for investment, and there is enough demand for the products to be purchased.


Currently more people are hoarding than spending ,so that ratio should go to down to 50%, but still the hoarders are very important. Both spending as hoarding is crucial.

Thanks RealBitcoin for your opinion. I must confess that I have had the same thoughts when I came to Bitcoin some weeks ago. I thought it would be a libertarian idea but actually it became left what is a bad development in my opionion.

If you and RealBitcoin are really so short sighted to see that left/right is actually a way of controlling your opinion, not a way of expressing it, then you deserve everything you get. Sell your commie coins lol, adults of all political persuasions are interested in buying.

No it's a totally legitimate political separation.


Right= Hierarchy, private property, capitalism ,  2+2 = 4 , well defined boundaries between objects

Left = Equality , common ownership, communism,  2+2 = 2 , everything is mixed together


You choose which one is better? For bitcoin, and for the future of bitcoin?


(Hint: there is no purpose for bitcoin's existence if you go left, what is the point of the 2^256 encrypted addresses separating your money if everything is common?)

No it isn't. Newspapers, political pundits and newsmedia in general are known liars in the Authoritarian control structure, be careful which aspects of their culture you assimilate.

My fix to your breakdown:


Liberalism= Free association, private property, capitalism, minimal or zero government

Authoritarianism =  Everything valuable owned by the elite, communism OR fascism, the proles are equally poor either way, maximum government



"Left" and "Right" are words that have no natural political meaning. Those words (Left & Right) are concerned with relative horizontal position from the perspective of an observer. All political meanings are projected, and using left-right as the polarities instead of up-down or red-blue is likely because of just how pliable the concept of left-right is (up-down and red-blue cannot change, whereas if you walk down a street one direction, what's on the left or the right changes if you walk it the other direction i.e. totally context dependent).

Like I said earlier in the thread, Left-Right is just a way of dividing people into 2 sides that can't win. The 2 sides should be uniting to fight against the actual problem: authoritarians who think they can live your life better than you can.

Since Bitcoin is all about personal responsibility, I'm of the opinion (which I'm sure you and many others here won't agree with) that you should carefully consider your investments before plowing money into them.  I came into Bitcoin with the full understanding that it was an open source system and that anyone is free to modify the code as they see fit.  So I find it hard to sympathise with those who believe that the people running the code don't matter.  It's self evident that they do.



It seems to be a popular misconception on this forum that "left" automatically equates to "communism".  There are many philosophies including left-libertarianism, syndicalism, statism, anarchism and socialism that all differ to communism in different ways.  It would be like me assuming that everyone on the right is automatically a fascist, which would clearly be incorrect.  I'd echo the viewpoint that the Authoritarian/Libertarian scale is far more pertinent than the Left/Right one in this discussion.  You can still be on the left and have libertarian views, the two aren't mutually exclusive.  To further muddy the waters, there are different types of communism.  The extreme authoritarian kind of communism is where the state compels the observance of equality by force.  Then there's the extreme libertarian kind, which can be colloquially described as "hippies".  And, like most things, there are more moderate shades of grey in between (although it should be noted, despite demonstrating this understanding, I don't identify as a communist   :P ).

Further, just because someone might have a philosophy that applies to the broken world of debt-based currencies and corrupt governments, it doesn't necessarily mean they want to apply those same beliefs to this shiny new paradigm we inhabit where code is law and consensus is king.  You might view me as a crazy leftist in the real world , but I certainly don't want to "Install a Pension System into the bitcoin protocol" or enact "Automatic wealth redistribution", because I don't think that's what this is for.  

Don't fear the leftists, fear the authoritarians.  But know also that protectionism is, without exception, an authoritarian concept.  There should be no central entity enforcing barriers to what should be a free and open market.  No one should be trying to tell anyone else what code they can and can't run.  It's a matter of personal freedom.

DooMAD, you're better than most but you don't totally get it either.


This is what former left-wingers sometimes say when they switch to libertarianism. They can't cope psychologically with the idea that anything right-wing makes sense, so they have to redefine their stance as "only the left part". This ignores the point of libertarianism: taking the good aspects of the right, and the good aspects of the left, thus rendering the dividing line null and void.

To come into libertarianism trying to re-establish the useless left-right dividing line can only be interpreted as either foolishness or intended to disrupt or divide libertarians.


Syndicalism = communist wolves in anarchist sheepskins. 5 minutes of anarchy, so we can set up the "correct" form of statism. I'd recommend not using the Syndicalist term if you wish to be taken seriously.


Indeed, why stop there when you could make it sound even more incoherent, lol



And this is where you descend into outright nonsense.

Individuals have every right to dictate who can use assets that belong to them. It's called property rights, and yes, it involves protecting your rightful possessions. Freedom is not the freedom to steal. And you've been advocating strongly for theft elsewhere on bitcointalk.org.

so there we have it.
2015 carlton and other blockstreamers done their 5 minutes of anarchy by R3kt campaigning how bad anyone linked to r3 are to scare people over to blockstream.
2016 blockstream gets a payday from and working with.... drum roll please.......... R3
2016 carlton claims bitcoin is blockstreams private property


https://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2016/03/open-source-blockchain-effort-enterprise-elects-leadership

i said it last year and highlighted it a few times this year. carlton is in the bait and switch game to get more people scared and sheep follow him into the wolf pen.

carlton=Authoritarian, not libertarian.
end of. moving on

The repo keys for the source code are the private property, not the network. Trying to mount a vigilante driven removal of the lock that a set of keys open is called theft.

dont need keys. the code has been open sourced. MIT licenced, and under a defensive patent licence which allows any to have it.

by the way it is worth mentioning that its blockstream that are the real people you are defending.
not the property owners related to github.

so dont divert your fake shilling to concern bitcoin. when we know you are only concerned with getting blockstream and the banks in a controlling dictator position of bitcoin.

Well, at least you understand that the repo keys are legitimate property. Hence why not everyone has a copy of the keys, lol

Yes, Core have every right to dictate who can use their github.  It's their property.  But that's the extent of their ownership.  If they want to have property rights over the code itself, they would need to release it under a different licence and have one of those EULA agreements no one ever reads, stating the software is their exclusive property and users don't have the right to modify or distribute it.  But that's not the case, so stop arguing that they own the code when they clearly don't.  You're the one descending into nonsense if you think users aren't free to modify and run whatever code they choose.



Concurred.

i was being sarcastic about your claim..LOL
having authority does not mean ownership

EG having ownership to a private key is meaningless.. a hacker using a trojan can have ownership too.
technically its all about authority of not ownership of.
as long as you don't give authority to anyone else then no one else has authority to it.

EG
you think you OWN your bank balance simply because you know the pin number to your ATM card.. and it has your name linked to the account
...think again.

even banks these days are not reimbursing funds if its obvious that another party used your pin number, because then you are the one at fault.
you can play mind games all you like and cry "but that money was in my name".. yep as an authorised user. not owner.
and now you know the secrets to why FIAT banks screw with people over, using the pretence that users funds are actually theirs.
its how they can take funds from your account at will.

if you have not learned anything of the real world then i feel sorry for you.

governments do not own the country, but they do have authority over it

facebook users do not own the content on their profiles. they only have authority to add,edit delete content

github can ban any user without notice. and the user is no legal recourse to cry "they deleted my private property"

stop assuming and instead start learning.

i think maybe its time you research a topic before you try getting involved. it will save you hours or days trying to whinge your way around the topic. by instead actually researching, you can make a point and then be done in alot less time.

and thanks for meandering offtopic and not making a valid point of the topic or even the meander.. yet again.
it continues to show your true colours

and to help others.

i edited a quote from DooMAD to help him get out of the semantics game carlton loves to play to try proclaiming bitcoin belongs to blockstream

The right to authorise has been given to the user by github. in short the github user is a supervisor/janitor and/or manager. not an owner

have a nice day,

Yes this it 100℅ true in all aspects of digital world and most real world items.

I've had a steam account worth well over 10k and i was a small pawn In trading items with people and I was sold stolen items and they then banned my account.. so from this I have learned we Own nothing that is on the internet hits why it is best to keep little coins in banks or only exchanges and online wallets

and not let the private key slip into other peoples hands. otherwise they have authority to sign a transaction

uh-oh, wasn't the whole basis of your wall-of-text post up-thread was that possession of cryptographic keys is not a form of authority? :D

While the right could be authoritarian, in most cases it isnt, it focuses on self-discipline and self-governance.

The left is always authoritarian, anarchists in the 1800 turned into bolshevist-marxists by 1900. You have to force equality because it is unnatural, and naturally people are unequal.


In order to create perfect equality, you will have an almighty government that will use totalitarian force in every aspect of your life to enforce equality, and everyone will be equal but the state officials that enforce this.

A good example of a right wing libertarian state was the Roman Republic pre Punic Wars: there was free market, no income tax, tiny regulations in form of permits, voluntary military, no socialism, and property taxes were so low that you only had to work 1 day in a year to pay it off, and there was no inflation either.

Compare that to your shitty soviet factory, undisciplined ,where half workers were drunk and they couldn't even produce basic stuff, everything was imported from the west.

Incomparable. So I'd choose a libertarian right, because left libertarian is oxymoron.



It is. Because as soon as you create some equality, you want to push the limit further.

It's like dropping a drop of red ink in clean water, it spreads very quickly and makes all the water red.

Enforcement of equality will escalate, and you will end up with an unimaginably tyrranical authoritarian government,  STALIN ^ 1000 level tyranny.

So any form of leftism will escalate into tyrannical communism very quickly.

All this left-anarchism, syndicalism, liberalism, social-democracy, will end up in communism eventually, it's not a question if, but when.


"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." - Lenin

"The goal of socialism is communism." - Lenin

So you're saying Mussolini wasn't a right-wing authoritarian? Or that the Liberal left Dutch society is authoritarian? The Dutch culture is quite similar to what Libertarianism promises (and has not had a chance to deliver so far)

Yes he was a  right wing authoritarian.


I am talking about right wing libertarianism, read my full post before responding to snippets taken out of context.



Things like Cristianatown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania, is just a hippy nonsense and it is not sustainable in the long term. Most people there are just hippy pot smokers that are lazy, they are squatting in abandoned buildings, instead of building new modern ones. This is really the level of the left, like a bunch of edgy teenagers that are bored.

The Roman Republic on the other hand made entire Europe civilized, by turning the unwashed barbarians that drunk dirty water and were cannibals into prosperous civilized people.

realbitcoin.. seriously

if a right wing liberals is a left wing authoritarian
if a left wing liberals is a right wing authoritarian

then you are not making a point
can you stop using wings out of context..
im actually going to say before carlton meandered off topic he had an earlier rational point

Everything I responded to was in context.

If you say "The left is always authoritarian", I provided an example of left labelled politics that is liberal, not authoritarian. It's entirely reasonable to point out how right labelled politics can be just as tyrranical, hence left and right is not the route to finding freedom or liberalism. Left and right deliberately divides freedom in half, as I've said.


To illustrate further:

Presumably, as someone who identifies with the right label, you're a big fan of:

• Monarchies (literally the opposite of freedom and self determinism, it's a "mono-archy")
• Banning recreational drugs (wanna mess with the freedom of others, huh)
• Police state thuggery against vulnerable people (but they're all criminals just waiting to happen though, right?)
• Traditional family values (it says in the Bible "let no man put asunder", therefore your divorce is a sin!)
• Heavily patrolled national borders and restrictive policies for foreigners to cross (tekkin' yer jobs? What about the free-market?)

You see, "rightists" have equally unpalatable characteristics also, if you don't choose to pretend they don't exist. That's why Libertarianism doesn't conform to any of those bullet points. Like I said, throw away the bullshit from the "right", AND the bullshit from the "left", and you've got anarchism/libertariansim left over.

 :-*

I can't think of one for "Traditional family values", anyone care to lend a hand?   ;D

Something about fork proposals being a sin, perhaps.   ::)

No, I am anti-monarchy. Monarchy is authoritarian. As I said, I am right-libertarian, the opposite of it.



Nope, not ban, but discourage. Drugs encourage degenerate behaviour, so it should not be promoted, but I would be in favor of legalizing it to stop this drug war mess.


Nope, if you have read my posts, you would know that i am anti-tyranny.


Yep, divorce makes children unstable and traumatized. Of course I am anti -divorce.



This depends. If we are talking about private property, then you obviously need to protect it. If a nation is a collective property of the citizens, then it needs to be defended.

I am not saying to build a huge wall ,or put sentry guns every 100 meters, but definitely a border security is needed.


So as you can see, right-wing libertarianism is very possible, in fact it's the best system.

As opposed to left wing, entirely, it devours itself.

How is that pension ponzi scheme working out again under negative interest rates?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/rich-countries-have-a-78-trillion-pension-problem.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_crisis
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/pension-crisis/the-pension-crisis-is-global/

Lol, very good.


The point is, we have to assess the forkers on their merits. Are you trying to tell me that Peter Rizun, Gavin Andresen or Mike Hearn wanted what was best for Bitcoin?


The ironic thing is that Gavin essentially agrees with every direction the Core team are going in, he either endorses it or even proposed the same himself. With one big diference: Gavin wanted the blocksize fork to happen first, in 2015. This is what's so ridiculous about both his and your position; there's nothing wrong with increasing the blocksize in principle, but

only at the right moment in time to suit what the software, the Bitcoin network and the underlying internet infrastructure can support.

2015 was not the right time, and neither was it this year. So that means that software imporvements to increase the capcity of the network are needed, not crude increases in resource usage that threaten the network.

I know you refuse to see that this is the sensible option, but the 25+ Core devs don't see it that way. About 3-4 devs see it your way, and the reasoning hasn't convinced anyone to take a risk on their (literally) backwards schedule to implement scaling up transaction capacity. Like you say, you're welcome to argue or code as you please, but this business of using nothing but bad arguments makes you look like bad losers, at best. And Bitcoin Unlimited and Rizun's tortured logic look plain devious and destructive.

1) Centralized development of private property duh, the Core code is the property of their developers (and despite this you can use it for free under MIT license I believe). However they have the github keys, and the commit access. Sorry but they deserve that right. Make your own wallet if you dislike it.

2) No, it's the modified code that messes with the freedom of others. GAMBLING FILTER in Knots, and TRAFFIC SHAPING & Targeted Bloom Filters in Unlimited, is kinda fishy...

3) They want to take away the freedom from gamblers, and from the nodes (if 2mb is enforced, tons of nodes will leave)

4) Well yes, its their private property, duh...

Discourage? With what? Fines? Jail?

Recreational drugs can encourage positive behaviour as well as negative behaviour, responsible use leads simply to people having fun. Sometimes they can have significant cultural influence, like the effect MDMA had on shaping the electronic music scene in the 80's and 90's. It's sometimes suggested that psychoactives like mushrooms, cactii or cannabis may have played a role in the long term evolution of the hominid brain, although I'm don't totally subscribe to that theory.

And it seems that you're a little too interested in the lives of people that are otherwise simply choosing to do something that only really affects them. I accept that habitual use of extreme drugs like smoked meth or crack cocaine is unlikely to end well, but freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes.


Yes, but I'm still interested to hear how it is you would like drugs to be discouraged without tyranny though!



In principle, me too. Should authorities be involved in either marriage or divorce though, that's what I'm really getting at. It's one thing to have an opinion, yours and mine are the same or similar. It's another thing to say what you think should happen about it.

How about this: why not let people get married and divorced without anyone to officiate? Who's business is it when two people wish to make a new family together, other than that of the spouses? Blockchain could do that job IMO


Uh-oh, collectivist authoritarian detection! Nations are artificial to a large extent, and you can't be saying government is by nature oppressive and corrupt, and simultaneously grant  the same institution the power to police borders as a monopoly on force.

Let's put it another way: do you know which year national borders, and the passports needed to cross them, were introduced? Clue: not as long ago as you might think.


I fear you may never get it.

I'm trying to demonstrate to you that Libertariansim involves aspects of politics that the left and the right detests. What you're demonstrating is that you're not as Libertarian, or as rightist, as you would have us believe.

No, there could be other solutions, like not promoting it in every fucking media outlet. Literally from degenerate hiphop music to hippy crap its all about drugs, and that gets annoying after a while.

Yea if people were responsible ,but they are not. Like how well it worked out with alcohol, 80% of teenagers are constantly drunk, and by the time they get old they get all sorts of liver and intestine problems.

Don't tell me drugs dont have side effects, after all they are far worse than you pimp them. I think it makes people zombies, all these drug addicts look like some mentally disabled zombies.



By finding the root cause why people are addicts in the first place ,and eliminate that. Drug addicts, alcohol addicts, food addicts, video game addicts, sex addicts, etc etc...

They need therapy not prison. But above all we need to find out the causes why they are addicts ,and eliminate the causes.

Few of the reasons could be poverty, lack of discipline, bad education, abusive parents, etc...




No but what is the point of marriage if it's not life long?

People should be careful who they choose. Marriage should not be a contract that you can just dissolve. It when you have a kid, you dont throw him away just because you dont like him. You stick with it until you die.

So people have to be very careful who they choose as partners.

I am tired of all this cheatings, divorces, cuckold couples, and other bullshit. The kids will suffer from this and become just as stupid as their parents.




So is your property, but that doesnt mean you wont defend it. Who cares if it's artificial, its your culture and your neighborhood or your way of life.

Who said anything here about a government? Why cant the border security be a competitive thing? Just as bodyguards or private security could be an alternative to police, we could see similar things for border security.

Yeah because people realized that immigration can bring down empires, it brough down the Roman Empire and just look at Europe now, do you like it?




I perfectly know what I am talking about, I have researched every social aspect of this ,and i found the conclusion that this is the best system for prosperity and minimal government.

But sure why not try the left? After all it just murdered 200 million people, what could go wrong?

As I see it, it is pretty safe to say that the reason why libertarianism is popular among cryptocurrency users is because you are free to do what you want in life (socially leftish), while understanding how economics should work in a capitalistic society with limited government regulations (economically right).

Do I think capitalism is necessary at this stage of technological advancement we have in society already? Honestly, no... I don't think there is any "-ism" that satisfies what a nation (or everyone on planet earth) should follow; because all of those "-ism's" were created in an era where the industrial revolution was just kicking off.  This was during a time where there was still a high demand of people needed for farming and that sort of thing... obviously something we don't think about any more while food is in abundance (in wealthier countries).

We are WAY beyond what the current political ideologies tell us how to function as a society... As a human species, we need to go back to the drawing board and figure out the best way to live peacefully and work towards advancing human well being even further.

Why always someone need to relate almost everything on this planet with politic? I`m against all politic, for me all politicians are bad people. They don`t know how to do anything, they are just good at one thing and it`s talking.
Bitcoin is payment system and I think that democracy is the worst thing that can happen with bitcoin, but not just that, everything else involved with politics can be bad thing for bitcoin. Bitcoin is currency, and bitcoin needs to have one role and that is to make things easier for people. We all know what is fiat, and where it comes from, bitcoin system is much better from my perspective.

This is probably the most reasonable argument you've presented so far, so I don't know why you couldn't open with that, heh.

It should be noted that SegWit wasn't even on the table when concerns over the maximum throughput first arose, but now that it is, I am quite happy for us to experiment with that.  Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't implement Segwit and other optimisations.  I'm happy to have Lightning available as an option for those who wish to use it.  But I am absolutely adamant that the average user shouldn't be forced into using Lightning, or worse still, forced off-chain into some hideous realm of digital IOUs, because the main chain becomes an exclusive, elitist club for the new one-percenter-wanabees.  

I don't see that as a "bad argument".  I honestly and passionately believe that would be genuinely damaging to Bitcoin if it were to happen.  As such, I will continue to campaign vociferously against that potential outcome.  Contrary to popular belief, I don't want to see the Bitcoin network fall over because no one is able to run a node.  But at the same time, I believe it's quite reasonable to assume that two-thirds of a floppy disk won't be enough to cover an entire globe's worth of transactions in the space of ~10 minutes for many years to come.  There are no guarantees that SegWit, Lightning and other such proposals will solve the scaling issues.  I hope they do.  But I still want the option of a blocksize increase if they don't.  If I have to rely on an alternative client for that option to be available, so be it.    

So, with this in mind, I'm quite horrified by the increasing barrage of authoritarian attitudes towards development and the way in which people perceive network "governance".  I actually agree that changes should be made (at the risk of misquoting you) "at the right moment in time to suit what the software, the Bitcoin network and the underlying internet infrastructure can support", but I would simply add afterwards: I trust the market to decide when that time is and what code should regulate it.  If I didn't, I wouldn't have any money in it.

In fairness to you, I'll happily concede there are people making arguments that "blockstream are the devil, so we should fork yesterday" or "100mb blocksize, plz" or some other such silliness.  I'm not actually one of those people, though.  You might recall my amended BIP106 proposal (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.msg12438841#msg12438841), which I thought was pretty damn moderate, personally.  And your post in August last year about BIP106 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.msg12166313#msg12166313), where you were initially drawn to the idea, leaves me wondering how we keep butting heads over this matter and how I keep being personified as some sort of militant loon.

//EDIT:  Okay, before you say it, granted, I'm prone to making somewhat troll-ish bait posts, but only when I think you're being unreasonable.   :P

You make a lot of sense.
Don't be to forgiving and fair with him, you will get none back.

Because this is how humans organize.

I am laughing when people say, why do politics count and things like that ,like everything is just mixed together, and all will be good.

You have to realize that we need clear definitions, and boundaries. Yes bureocracy sucks, that is why it should be done in an automatic matter.


And woila, blockchain is born, you can kick out all your financial regulators and bankers, because now we can do money automatically. But we still need a clear and precise set of rules: the bitcoin source code.

You will always need laws/rules, the only question is how you enforce them? With guns? Or with computers?

Yes, I can agree with that. I'd point out too that what you said makes equal sense if you replace the words "leftish" and "rightish" with "permissive" or "liberal" (and I would tend to argue it would make more sense, but I'm slightly obsessed with the notion that the right-left paradigm is a meta-political control device to shepherd the serfs into the soft-authoritarianism of Western democracies)


Concurring here also, it's notable that these ideological concepts accompanied another era that resembles the type of major societal flux we're in today. And the evidence that those ideologies have failed is, of course, manifest. It's possible that some of these concepts will stand the test of this new era, but it's not easy to predict that without feeling very confident about what the planet will be like by the time this latest frontier of flux is behind us.

Could commerce become obsolete because of (effectively) infinite resources? Could politics be eliminated as a result of that over-abundance? Could death be outpaced forever with healthcare tech? Could technology come to life and dispense with us before that? Could (and should) we merge with engineered intelligence and/or mechanics to avoid that outcome? What will happen when technology can do so much of it's own re-design, that humans don't understand the technology the machines produce?

I suspect one certainty: genuine anarchy will become a reality at some point during all of this tumult.

Well that's what happens when you let the whole effing world in on the secret...what did you expect, comrade?

But seriously, does it really matter all that much who uses bitcoin?  It's kinda like being concerned that terrorists are buying stocks in the bull market.  Who gives a crap?  Everyone is welcome to do as they please!

I dont care as much about who uses bitcoin, if it were not for political power.

Whenever a group of people overtakes another group, they will push their own view from then on.

So if bitcoin is overtaken by socialists, expect wealth redistribution hardforks.

You and Core and segwit are safe and nice and right.
Others and bigger blocks are dangerous and bad and wrong.

RealBitcoin, not.

Well, I'm glad that you're happy to demonstrate good faith in being constuctive in debate. It seems that not all the fork-happy contigent share your stance.




I agree entirely with everything you say there. The "all-or-nothing" absolutist position of saying all transactions should suddenly only be handled by payment channel hubs is something that Franky has managed to drum into everyone's head. The trouble is, I've never actually seen a single example of anyone saying it, not even Poon and Dryffas who conceived the LN concept.

On chain transactions are always going to be more suitable for high-ish ticket one-off purchases, it's difficult to imagine the channel routing that could aggregate a payment like that into something more efficient; those with average or below average wealth make that kind of purchase more than often enough that they will need that facility. And the same is true of LN transactions, tiny repetitive payments make the most use of the Lightning structure, less so the less frequent they are. I'm more than happy to consider whatever other new innovations can be conceived, on their merits. And there's nothing wrong with increasing the blocksize, as we seem to agree, at the right time. Maybe we might still disagree as to when that is, this story is by no means over, but we're at least agreeing on the basics.



I feel the same as you did: why didn't you just say it like this before?!


Ditto. That's my exact position right there.    


The problem is how badly the debate has been polarised, but you've really got to look at the way the "2MB yesterday" crowd have been behaving to see how that situation has arisen. The whole cast; Peter Rizun, Franky, VeritasSapre etc just refused to behave like adult debaters. They indulged in nothing but troll debating, every trick there is, they used it. It's not easy to be restrained with people that are only interested in being disruptive, and it's therefore all too easy to mistake someone trying to genuinely argue something ill-conceived for someone trying to make bad arguments disingenuously.

So, we're proving here we can have a productive discussion about this, that we agree on more than we disagree, and that we've been talking past each other a fair amount. What was the point again, lol

lol firstly lets correct who started the drumming and provoking
this next quote is just on example of carltons drumming that started the beat off

theres loads of examples of carlton and his ilk talking about the blockchain "layer" as the settlement and then offchain/sidechain "layer" as the payment

anyway lets put a line through that

---

onto the more important part i noticed
carltons comments today have left me positively shocked and amazed.

firstly that carltons own words defeated him.. but secondly.. and more importantly
carlton suddenly today has had an epiphany and suddenly wised up to what others have been saying to him since last year
(though i feel its just another flip-flop bait and switch, wolf in sheeps clothing, short term thing)

finally carlton, after about a year of saying the opposite, he has finally actually opening his mind and accepting onchain capacity needs to grow to allow freedom to use for onchain transactions and not just using the space for settlements.
i say this with genuine admiration, thank you carlton for waking up.

i hope this new epiphany also includes no longer having rage debates where onchain TX fee wars are good and should raise the price of a tx.
i hope this new epiphany also includes no longer having rage debates where the blockchain should just be a 'reserve currency'/settlement for offchain/sidechains to be the payments.
(as displayed above about )

its good to see you are finally this very day showing you may actually drop your 'dictatorship desires off offchain being the future direction of capacity,' to instead think of bitcoin as an open network for anyone to use requiring actual onchain growth.

i applaud you for seeing the light.may you continue learning and actually seeing what many others have seen last year. and realise that your old mindset should be left in the past.

but please while your at this realization. do not try pretending you have not been the drum beater with all your involvement in "2mb is an altcoin", "bigblockers are invading", "R3KT campaigning", "2mb F-off", all evident you previously did not want more tx onchain capacity and instead wanted that limited onchain space used for LN settlements, aswell as demonstrated by fighting the bad fight to try getting segwit popularized to head in that direction.

but as i say i am glad you are now accepting that onchain capacity should grow to allow freedom of choice.
lets just hope you stay on this new 'eyes opened' mindset and you dont retreat back to your bad habits of the last 10-14 months

please dont go back to the dark side. otherwise today has been a waste of time for you if you are just baiting and switching.

And this differs from what me and DooMAD said, how, exactly?



You're a funny man Franky, you're all too aware of the poor faith tactics you're using to make non-arguments with, and you cheefully label me as the ad hominem user, the strawman artist or the bait and switch king. The irony of that is not going to be lost on anyone with reading comprehension.

You know what it's called wen you accuse others of your own bad behaviours, pretending you never engaged like that in the first place? Trolling. Seriously, you're never going to make any friends here or get anyone real to listen to you if you're so blatant.

At least others here are capable of being reasonable.


???

Thank you Franky, that's unusually kind of you. Seems like you might have rushed those first two, er, let's call them lines.

Are you being conciliatory because you mean it, or because you want me and RealBitcoin to have an argument? :D Agreeing with that particular point is a little strange for you, it makes you sound thoughtful, and like you might be more than capable of being a reasonable person. I'd so like not to be disappointed here, are you telling me that you really agree? Surely this reasonable streak is just you toying with us all again?

Tell us more

(oh, and stop meandering off topic, lol) :D

my comments about your apparent flip from:
the authoritarian monarchistic dictatorship of wanting blockstreams dream of offchain as the payment layer, onchain as the settlement layer
to
the liberal freedom that people should have freedom of choice by expanding onchain capacity, to allow choices to expand unhindered
is on topic.

and if your sudden realization and epiphany is genuine, then i sincerely applaud it.
though i still have a feeling its just a temporary ruse. and only time and your future comments about your ideals can uphold your new mindset, or reveal it to have been temporary.

i have the feeling its a subtle plan to make a later point, that your change of mind cannot be defined in the left or right category, which even "realbitcoin" cannot define as 2 separate states.

but i truly do hope you are genuinely dropping your authoritarian monarchistic dictatorship. and if so. i truly and sincerely applaud your realization

Franky, there has to be a monarchy in Bitcoin development, there cannot be more than one set of rules running simultaneously. Saying that off-chain and on-chain are in competition with one another as scaling solutions defies your own laboured rhetoric that on-chain works for some transaction types and off-chain for others (commit-aggregated or pre-chain is a better label for what actually happens in Lightning, anyway).

No-one except you is presenting the false dichotomy that a scaling solution should be either the one or the other.

Arguing for changing the leadership is legitimate. Spreading lies about the present leadership is not a legitimate way to achieve that, if the truth isn't good enough, then you lost.

leadership?
seriously you running back down the (centralized, authoritarian, monarchistic, dictatorship) rabbit hole soo soon.

here, this may recover your epiphany.
dictatorship:
1 guy/corp makes the rules and the sheep have to blindly follow or move away never to use bitcoin.

consensus:
there are many rules (proposals) but unless there is general agreement by the indepenadant-open network. the rules dont activate
this requires the several implementations and thousands of nodes and dozens of pools to come to compromises until there is general agreement across the network, for the network to then grow

EG 2mb base 4mb weight
is a compromise where everyone wins

separately,

i would have said you were just authoritarian(until u mentioned leadership).
EG whoever agrees to the rules equally has authority to use whats within the rules. making consensus(the protocol) the authority, owned by no-one but used by anyone where independent compromise, results in eventual general agreement(consensus) to make changes.

but you presume ownership. not just authorisation(example: your github argument)
EG saying that core should be the only decision makers and own bitcoin outright and everyone should blindly just follow core. this is not a libertarian ideal. its a dictatorship ideal

in short when something is suppose to be international, without borders and has an ethos of decentralization. claiming outright ownership by just one corporation is the opposite of that ethos.

please dont run back down the dictatorship rabbit hole

the usual repeating-repeating-repeating from Franky

You know that's a hallmark of propagandists, don't you Franky? Just tell the lie ("I Franky, present to you the only viable compromise") over and over and over again....



You're the most uncompromising person on the board, and you apply that to your only reason to post: disparaging Core. You don't post for any other reason than that, it's plain for all to see.

You know that you're the best advertisement for Bitcoin Core that exists, right?

@RealBitcoin: First of all, you should understand that leftists aren't all communists or fans Lenin. You should really start re-thinking your biases you have in your mind. There is nothing wrong about being left at all.

Couldn't agree more. Money and capitalism should be used as tools to enable free-market decisions about resources, and therefore anti-political in nature. So this kind of political language (left-right) has no place in Bitcoin.

Dear franky1, you are talking nonsense as usual.

Bitcoin cannot have 2 codes competing on the same network, that is called an altcoin ,and you have 1000+ of those already. Only 1 code can run on 1 network.

If you don't like bitcoin's current code, go an create your altcoin.

Some people can use drugs responsibly, and some drugs are just easy to use responsibly (tea and coffee, for instance. Take it away from a coffee drinker, then tell me it's not addictive).

You've got strong opinions about this, but guess what? (you guessed it...) Me too. I agree that "drug culture" is sometimes very alarming to observe, but people should be free to do so. And I'm a product of that culture to a certain extent, as the 90's electronic music scene played a big role in my upbringing. The extent to which that culture brought together ghetto-ised inner city youth was amazing, and the results were overwhelmingly positive.


I understand that crude exploitation of these drug-fuelled cultures lead to banal music and culture, but I fail to see how The Beatles, Larry Heard (of acid house fame) or Eric B & Rakim could have come about without LSD, MDMA or marijuana. The music influenced the drugs and the drugs influenced the music. And those musicians are up there with Bach and Puccini for me.


Yes, I agree. But compulsive behaviour is complex psychology sometimes, it depends on so much about the way an individual thinks. The frequently difficult aspect is getting someone with harmful behaviour to even recognise they have a problem. Unless you want to force them into treatment (not the libertarian way), significant amounts of drug addicts will not take the advice.


*sigh*

Yes, I agree with all this too. But who really goes into any relationship without hoping it might be the one that lasts? I've often said that there's alot of people out there that just aren't suited to getting married, you can see the outcome (divorce) years in advance with some people. But again, freedom to make mistakes is paramount for me. Maybe if we weren't all living these very intense 40 hours + working weeks with 14 days holiday a year, people would have better quality time to think about these decisions, to meet a wider range of people before they make hasty or ill-considered commitments.


I'm with you on these observations also, immigration is being used as a covert weapon by the political class. The left-identifying knee-jerking annoys me a great deal here: merely pointing out that 100's of thousands of immigrants arriving simultaneously is going to cause indigenous xenophobes to start calling for lynchings is itself dismissed as racism. I don't know what they think they're arguing for, that somehow they can convert every who's afraid of foreigners into hippies overnight, just because "it's the right thing to do". What difference does that make if the migrants and the xenophobes end up all killing each other!

I agree that security services would be more accountable if privatised. But the borders stuff has to go, apart from the border to your house and mine, of course. There's one aspect of globalisation that no-one can put back into the bottle: the technology. Modern transport and communications have made the world a smaller place, and that trend is not looking like changing for the time being. When it takes hours to do journeys that used to take weeks, when I think of the idea of queuing up to check myself in at the gate to get a little book stamped.... ::)

I just don't have time for that. I'd love to be able to develop trading relationships worldwide, just for a weekly grocery shop. Go to Equador and Cote d'Ivoire for some chocolate, over to India and China for tea leaves and spices, pass through quickly France, Chile and Uruguay for vegetables.... how am I supposed to get this all done in one day if I have to mess about with customs desks and immigration officials and visa documents and... :D
 

If a client sends and receives coins on an alternate blockchain, then it's an altcoin.  If, however, it sends and receives bitcoin transactions following Bitcoin's blockchain, then it's still Bitcoin.  The specific alternative clients you're referring to still adhere to the rules of the Bitcoin network and will continue to do so, unless the market chooses to change those rules.  Bitcoin can and does have more than one code running on the same network.  Not all alternative clients propose changes to the rules.  There's clearly a few you aren't aware of.  You can view a list of them at the bottom of this page (https://coin.dance/nodes).  There are Bitcoin clients programmed in Go/lang, F# and Haskell which perform similarly to Core, are they altcoins too?  BitPay have their own client called Bitcore (https://bitcore.io/), which simply adds some enhanced API features.  Again, does that make it an altcoin?

LOL
1. bitcoinJ (java) is running on the network, as are Nbitcoin(C# and VB), BU, XT, knots, classic and a dozen other implementations with different code and different rules set locally in their nodes.

2. the network is not in one place. its made up by different locations with all their different code, the network survives by a consensus of rules where orphans take care of the different locations that dont fit the rules.

3. a node accepting any block below 2mb will work happily while another node wants only 1mb. as long as miners only produce under 1mb blocks, all code can work together, and currently do. the 2MB proposal is not 'all blocks have to be over 1mb' but anything under 2mb is acceptable.

4. mining pools wont even attempt to do anything outside of consensus because it will hurt them due to the orphaning mechanism (make their block and reward disappear)

5. no proposal has shown desire of a split. they have shown desire of consensus.

6. you are avoiding decentralization and open system to pretend bitcoin is centralized to core. fail on you

7. its consensus (compromise and agreement) that allows the network to upgrade. without agreement there is no upgrade. it continues unchanged.

8. dictating what a rule should be and forcing a split to the opposition is how altcoins are made. by a 'workaround' to avoid the orphaning consensus mechanism.

9. it is only core that are suggesting(not as official proposal) right now they wont meet consensus and any opposition should split. your statement and other dictatorship lovers statement prove such.

you need to learn about consensus, decentralization, and open networks.

i feel sorry for anyone thinking bitcoin is owned by one corporation
the network has no owner. it has consensus. anyone who agrees to the consensus has authorisation to use the network


but here is your opinion summerised.

[blank] due to realbitcoins opinion lacking fact, thus meaningless

Well then they have to be denied healthcare when their health goes south. There is no way to put it.

Either they go to therapy, or their healthcare won't cover drug related ilnesses. This is a libertarian fair ,way to not incentivize unhealthy behaviour.

Better yet, eliminate socialized healthcare entirely, why should a healthy person pay for an alcoholic or a drug addicts bills?




Yea good point, it is really annoying that people have to work 40+ hours a week, they dont have time for raising kids, they dont have time for romance, heck they dont have time to live.

This is one of the root causes of socialism, if we give people more time to choose things, they will make more rational decisions, than in the heat of the moment.

I am not saying you have to force people to stay together, nor I would like to ban divorce. I dont like to ban things, i just want to discourage bad behaviour.

So if a family decides to divorce, it's their choice, but they should suffer the consequences as well: no allimony, no maternal leave, no government welfare for single parents, and then let's see how they will live.






Well it is being use to breed more welfare voting leftists.


Well no it doesnt work that way, you have to ensure the security of the perimeter too, not just your house. If an armed mafia moves to your neighborhood, it won't help you if you have a pistol and lock your door, they will keep the neighborhood in fear and rob everybody. So unless you have money for a permanent army battalion headquartered in your backyard, I suggest you to take a more collective defense strategy here.

I would say a neighborhood run police force would be bare minimum. Basically the neighboors choose a security company to do the policing in that zone, with specialized and well trained people, it would work well.




Well you cant because 1 flight is about 10 hours, so there is no way to be in all these places in 1 day.

But you could establish an international import company to do these things, setup a few supermarkets, and you have all your international goodies in your neighborhood grocery store.

Now tell me you can have more than one set of consensus rules functioning at once. Sure, BU has different consensus rules, but it's only applying those rules within what Core allows. Any rules an alt client has that contradict Core's rules won't actually end up expressed in a way that changes blockchain behaviour.

So any alternative rules are just sitting still, not functioning within the boundaries they set. They function within Core's boundaries, and it's basically as if they do not exist, as to all intents and purposes, they do not.

lol you dont understand consensus.
please dont waste 3 hours writing comments about your love of a core dictatorship.
if you really want to use your own time:
spend 2 hours researching and understanding and then spend 5 minutes realizing the epiphany you keep forgetting.
it saves you time, it saves you wasting time. it teaches you something. meaning overall you are better for it.

if you instead just reply wasting your time with your dictatorship mindset. then it appears the epiphany you had has been lost.
please dont waste your own time repeating the dictatorship rhetoric without understanding how consensus works
please research bitcoins consensus mechanism. it will help you

Franky thinks "consensus" means something different from what the dictionary says lol. Oh do tell Franky, I'm sure it won't be a confusing, 25 paragraph, Joycian stream-of-consciousness mess, lol

Personally, I'd substitute each instance of "Core" for "the market", but other than that, agreed.  These alternative clients would only be altcoins if they activated a fork without consensus.  Aside from that, they conform 100% to the rules set by the market.  All they do is give the market the opportunity to choose what those rules should be.  A free and open market where the users can choose what code they run.  

Code is law and consensus is king, so in a sense, you still get your monarchy.   :D

The fact is that 99,99% of leftist don't even imagine what is and how is socialism or communism in practice. I live today in Latin America and here we got the Venezuelan case. I won't talk about it but many of you can seek all over the internet, it's full of articles, etc.

History is full of example. Honestly, everyone who sympatize with socialism and communism is extremely dumbass, stupid and in the strictly meaning of the word, an idiot.

You who sympatize, just search this terms:

1) Scientific diet Program in Romania;
2) O socialismo latino-americano: um grande negócio para os ricos e um pesadelo para os pobres;
3) O socialismo venezuelano: pessoas comendo cachorros, saqueando supermercados e morrendo de inanição;
4) A maré estatista na America Latina e a teoria do intervencionismo;

Most are in portuguese, but who is interested translate it.

Everything leftists touch become dust. They are underhanded and liars, say about a better life for poors, but they just want to reign and to have all power on their hands! They don't create anything, they just want to have all the rights over it next. And with Bitcoins it couldn't be different!

They say the world is a big party where everybody is friend of each other (least those who don't agree with them, those must suffer). And people still believe them...

And I already saw a lot of those leftists also, principally on FB groups of my country. I don't understood why they are there if they love censorship.

So you're a capitalist? Are you capitalist about everything, definitely no communist thought or action ever comes from you, right?

My great grandfather was a  POW in a Soviet Gulag after WW2,  I know exactly how scum the communists are. They are the lowest form of scum that this planet has ever seen.

So I have a nose that can smell a leftist from miles away, and it stinks from genocide and evil tyranny.

Please don't be upset with me here, I don't intend to offend, as I understand how important honouring one's family is.


But don't you see that neither capitalism or liberty motivated you to honour your grandfather's memory as you are here. It is a sense of duty, pride, respect, honour and love of your family that was in mind. These are all tribal, collectivist attributes, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Do you see that collectivism isn't always wrong or evil, as long as the collective can be chosen freely? Otherwise, we'd be throwing our newborn babies out in the street to stop collectives forming! Everything has it's place, and communes or collectives are foolish when enacted on a grand scale, in a top-down fashion, as critics of political communism all know. But when collectives are tiny, atomised, bottom-up, and freely chosen, it makes the individuals in those collectives (called families) stronger.

I suppose you think the Nazis were leftists too?

Left and Right are equally capable of genocide and evil tyranny.  The common denominator is authoritarians.  The Soviets were an authoritarian regime.  Authoritarian regimes don't generally recognise the rights of individuals or personal freedom.  So left or right would have made little difference.  How many more times does it have to be said?  The Authoritarian/Libertarian scale is far more pertinent than the Left/Right one in this discussion.

He didnt die in the gulag, he was released 5 years later and told how they were tortured there, but his health declined severely after, and he died a few years later. The siberian gulag is no joke, I don't want to go in details.

So when I see silly leftists demanding more socialism, you know where that will lead, eventually.


I dont even know what you are talking about, I dont reject group solidarity, if you are part of a group that respects your individuality while also working together for a common goal, that is acceptable. Of course everything is based on groups: a company, a community (this bitcoin!) , a family, etc...

But collectivism is not this, collectivism, is not group solidarity, it is totalitarian management of a group by a chosen elite. There was no equality in communism, because you always had a hierarchy.

So I am not against being in a group, but against being managed in a collectivist style, that the left is pushing. They don't respect individuality.


You are late on this discussion, I already explained to Carlton, that:

While the right could be authoritarian, in most cases it isnt, and works well: Roman Republic pre Punic wars: low taxes, tiny regulations, prosperity, free market, low crime, no socialism.

While there is no evidence of a libertarian left, the left is always authoritarian: 1800's anarchists turned into Bolsheviks by 1900.

I've never met anyone with a story like that. My grandfathers/greatgrandfathers were involved in the World Wars, but they were lucky enough not to suffer long term capture or anything like the gulags.



Unfortunately, collective and group mean the same thing. If the political scientist who coined the term "collectivism" had decided otherwise, it would be called "groupism" and still be an equivalent concept. Political language has a habit of becoming detached from it's original meaning, words used to convey political meaning can end up telling people nothing except who the "others" are, what label we use to identify them with. It's as if a word that should be a description gets changed into just a meaningless name instead.


Recognise, this is so frustrating for me: I agree with maybe 95% of all your political views, and yet I classify myself as an anarchist, without any left/right slant at all! It seems really regrettable to me that people might choose to be in conflict with each other over a political label that I am pretty sure is a clever trick to get people to fight each other!

Then you explained it wrong.  Maybe you need pictures to help explain it to you.

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq337/Omnisdei/politicalcompass2.png

Hitler and Pinochet were brutal, genocidal maniacs and they were both right wing authoritarians.

Ghandi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama are left wingers but didn't slaughter countless innocents and were not authoritarians.

Now stop spouting drivel.

Well there are many people who survived Gulags. Most of them didnt, but the POW were released after 5-10 years I think. But most gulag prisoners were politicial prisoners , not war prisoners, most of those had died there.

You should read up on communist atrocities, you will find many fascinating and sad stories.







Well yea that is my point the word collective is like the Borg Collective from Startrek, an entity that is like a single unit, having totalitarian control over their dominion.

While a group means just a voluntary association of individuals, and doesnt have the domination element there.



Hey I dont mind if you disagree with me, we still have a common goal here: Bitcoin. As long as we both want bitcoin's long term success, who cares about the other disagreements?



What are you talking about , I specifically said anti-authoritarian right wing.

Besides that chart is a bit way off: Merkel right wing? And the Pope is left-wing? Give me a break.

Look into the Roman Economy: $43.4bn GDP 2000 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy

Most countries still dont have this GDP, after 2000 years of evolution, they did in 2000 years ago, by having the best economic system available.

Gotta back up RealBitcoin here, these charts are usually totally off point.

Who can seriously argue that Gandhi, Mandela, Chomsky and the Dalia Lama promoted socialist economics that was non-Authoritarian! Presumably the South African people of the 1st ANC government in the mid-90's paid their taxes without having to be asked, right!?! Wrong! It's impossible to redistribute wealth without authoritarianism, so it's just plain fraudulent to even suggest it's possible.

Equally, the top right quadrant features some bizarre entries. Neither Bush, Thatcher or Blair were really economically "right" ("economically liberal" is the correct expression). Thatcher and Bush promised tax cuts that were only ever appreciably applied to the corporate sector. Blair was involved in tax increases and extended wealth redistribution. All 3 campaigned on being economically liberal, sure! No-one should have been surprised when they gave economic freedom to one group only: their crony buddies. That's not freedom, and all three were heavily disliked, at home and abroad.

Yes, and also Socially Conservative =/= Authoritarian.

Having a solid family and some traditional values is not Stalinism.

The pope cant be left wing because he is essentially a monarch sitting on billions of dollars worth of land of the catholic church not planning to redistribute that.

Merkel is socially liberal, and essentially a socialist in economic terms.

Friedman is not very economically liberal, i think he still supports central banking and fractional reserves.

The leftists on the left-botton quadrant were also a joke, you cant be socially liberal while demanding forced redistribution of wealth. That makes them pretty much more authoritarian than the ones above them, because they mask their evil intentions under the disguise of freedom.

If the chart were referring exclusively to taxation, then sure, I'd probably agree with that.  But it also takes into account views on law and order, foreign policy, civil rights and so on.  If the chart was based purely on taxation and wealth, it would look very different.  Also, even if you want to dispute the placement of particular individuals, that's still a more reasonable standpoint than RealBitcoin's rather extreme opinion that the entire bottom-left quadrant doesn't exist.  

My point was simply that genocide and tyranny is by no means an exclusive trait of the left.  You might not like their economics, but you'd acknowledge Gandhi, Mandela, Chomsky and the Dalia Lama haven't committed any acts of genocide, right?

//EDIT: 
http://www.teamhellspawn.com/libertariancompass.png

Slightly better?  It separates social authoritarianism from economic authoritarianism.  I suspect that's a bit closer to how the world looks from a purely libertarian economic viewpoint. 

To be fair though, I was only referring to the economic aspects. I don't mean to oversell the criticism; I'd be happy if they emptied everyone from the bottom left into the top left, replaced "left" with "socialist" and "right" with "capitalist", moved Blair Bush and Thatcher into the socialist half, then filled in the bottom left with just "Hippy communes".



I actually entirely agree with RealBitcoin, that bottom-left corner is near enough a logical fallacy.

Not sure about the Lama, but Mandela actually committed several acts of organised violence when campaigning in the 60's, and a young Gandhi just so happened to work as a soldier drafted in to help the British suppress an uprising in, coincidentally, South Africa. The pacifist Gandhi killed unruly civilians, allegedly. Pretty sure there are no such skeletons in Noam Chomsky's cupboard though, lol

Look the main characteristics leftists share is the failure to recognize natural limits of the universe.

Leftists have a fanatical "borderless" worldview, and think that a utopia will come where everyone will just sit on the beach smoking a pipe and chasing beautiful girls all day.

---

How is this manifested in Bitcoin?

• Large blocksize = Leftists fail to recognize that a 2mb blocksize renders node operators a huge burden because they actually have to manage their own limited resources
• Whining about big fees = Bitcoin fees are like 10 cent compared to like 4-5% + 5$ at major card company payments, yet they still complain that it's too much and cant make this tiny sacrifice for the benefit of bitcoin
• Wealth redistribution = In altcoins, people constantly while about premine, and would love equal redistribution of coins, and sometimes even extend this to bitcoin as well
• Democratic Bitcoin = they constantly want to push for a democratic governance of bitcoin, whining about Core, and they want to essentially "steal" away the rights from Core (that is their private property) over their property. Also complaining about Blockstream, and inventing bogeyman stories about them.
• Conspiracy theories about Blockstream = yes I saw many people here inventing conspiracy theories about Blockstream and the devs that work for them, this is a classical propaganda tool of the left to discredit good people
• Censorship = this is their favorite tool, just see how many posts have been censored at /r/btc
• Lying to fit the narrative = yes they don't shy away from this too, people have been caught fabricating nonsense statistics about the bitcoin network to push for a hardfork
• 5-year old behavior = when caught in the bullshit, they get angry and turn their back on bitcoin, and start attacking it, for not fitting their personal ideas. They are not loyal to bitcoin if they cant shape it into their worldview, and become enemies of bitcoin very quickly.
  
  
  

So yes ladies and gentlemen, this is how the left operates in Bitcoin, these are all leftist doctrines/ styles and we can see them all in this forum and elsewhere.

Here's where I'm having a problem. Is it inconsistent or hypocritical to be socially conservative about some issues and socially liberal about others? Because that's me.


And I think you're helping to reveal another flaw in this layout; socially conservative from the perspective of the family unit is, as you say, not authoritarian (it is collectivist though! but I' ll let that go for now...)

But social conservatism can be authoritarian, if you apply it top-down and not bottom-up. Criminalising homosexuality or recreational drug use are good examples.


Lol, indeed. Probably the most conceited of the bunch, but I guess, in a strange kind of way, you've got to admire the sheer balls behind the Catholic Church; they managed to create an enormous soft-empire from nothing except some stories about an invisible man. Religion: the original and best mind control.



Not that familiar with Merkel, but you have to really want to find out about her, as I'm pretty sure she doesn't even speak to the press in any language except German (which I'm not very good with).



Mmmmm, Friedman is a shady character to say the least. He does indeed support the central banking ponzi, the whole Chicago school is just Keynsianism with some healthy layers of diversionary garbage concerning money supply. Not that monetarism isn't useful per se, but when your applying it to fiat, it's one of those cases of not seeing the elephant in the room. Even Friedrich Hayek got tainted with this stuff. It's ironic too, Augusto Pinochet is actually on the chart, and who was it that devised Pinochet's fascistic economic policy? None other than Milton Friedman.

I suspect a large source of contention comes from the fact that Libertarian views work exceedingly well in Bitcoin, but in the wider world, it's more of an ideological standpoint than a practical one.  The only "tax" in Bitcoin is the miner fee, which is important to maintain the network we all use.  But if you support the abolition of tax in the fiat world, you're effectively asking yourself to be removed from it.  

For example, unless you've recently developed wings, are a full-time shut-in, or a hermit that lives in the woods, chances are you use public roads and pavements.  Whether you walk, drive or get the bus, you require use of something that taxation paid for.  Taxes that maintain the network we all use.  So if you genuinely believe tax is theft and should be completely abolished, are you going to personally build your own private road network to connect all the places you need to travel?  Would you set up toll booths every few hundred yards?  Are you going to advocate using technology to track road users via GPS so you can charge them by the amount they personally use public roads?  It might sound good at first, but then centralised surveillance on that scale doesn't really seem to gel with a socially liberal outlook.  So, instead, pragmatism kicks in and you realise that there are legitimate cases for taxation, like the miners fee, because we all use that network.

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9s0oylfm21qz4w1go1_400.png

*Sigh*

This is precisely why Carlton had the right idea with his first post in this thread:


That's exactly what just happened here.  You both approach the issue from your own opposite views, becoming completely divided by it.  Chances are, both interpretations are slightly dishonest and the truth actually lies somewhere in the middle.  Just keep it simple and agree that everyone is free to run the code they want.

Dude, you just contradicted yourself, right there.

When majority of people is proven to be idiots then democracy is the worst possible system. Anyways we don't have any true democracy anymore, everything is manipulated.

What if Satoshi didn't leave and stayed with us as bitcoin leader? Can you imagine what will happen under his guidance? His word might be deciding factor in disputes...

adam back is proclaiming to be satoshi 2.0 by saying bitcoin is his property..
blockstream want a dictatorship

here is a blockstream owned website. re-writing the past to suggest adam back created bitcoin via his "hashcash" prior to satoshi
https://21.co/learn/proof-of-work-using-hashcash/#hashcash-the-key-to-nakamoto-consensus

all the subtle name drops

all the subtle over selling

You're analogy is wrong.

Who's forcing you to use Bitcoin? No-one. It's a service that you use because you want to, not because you are forced to.


Maybe you're thinking: "but you still ave to use and pay for the roads". I use them. I don't pay taxes though, not even VAT most of the time.


And besides, this is the oldest objection to anarchism that exists: "who will build the roads?". All you're really proving is that you've not considered that a decentralised solution can be conceived. It can.

carlton you're pretending and hoping blockstream dictatorship exists now. to try forcing 'terms of service' where if people dont like blockstream they can "F**k off". purely as a pre-emptive ruse to get blockstream the dictatorial control it desperately needs(to get continual investment), sooner.

even though your contract may be ending soon and blockstream may not get its next financial tranche, if blockstream doesnt become the  dictatorial ruler of the network.
i feel sorry that you are actually willing to suggest bitcoin network protocol becomes centralized purely for your own personal greed.
i feel sorry for you when you keep pretending that dictatorial ownership is active now, purely to try speeding up things to hope your contract gets renewed
i feel your on a contract due to noting your different mindset last year compared to this year (and occassional flip flopping)
i feel your contract is expiring soon because you have flip flopped your mindset recently, which may be due to knowing you wont be in contract soon so you have become conflicted with your own mindsets.
if you are not under contract then i guess you have never been a libertarian and always have been an authoritarian, desiring to become part of a dictatorial regime.

you are an obvious sellout, just like gmaxwell and your other chums that care more about a corporation then the decentralized bitcoin network.

you "might" be a liberal outside of contract. but it seems sunday nights epiphany, then mondays contractual blockstream rhetoric reveals that you are willing to sell out your own personal views.

so which is it. never being a libertarian, or being under contract selling out your (previous) personal mindset. aswell as selling out bitcoins ethos

right. Why is it that everyone in Bitcoin chooses the opposite of what you recommend Franky, despite you always being right?

If you really believed in what you are saying, you could have transcended all of this nonsense by simply becoming a market participant yourself: with your genius insights, you should be the king of cryptocoins? Yet you choose to hang around here all day every day saying nothing but "you're all dooooooooing it wroooooooong".

Why don't you want to use your superior knowledge to deal with all the better cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin without dictators, their puppets and mindless sheep running the show?

why would i want to become king? there should be no king!!
dont you get it yet

bitcoin should be remain decentralized not made into a monarchy of the blockstream royal family
bitcoin should be remain decentralized not made into a dictatorship of the blockstream corporation with banker backing

wake up. have an epiphany. tear up your contract and stop defending blockstreams regime.
your only shooting yourself in the foot each time you attack bitcoins decentralization/diversity to defend blockstream

If you don't want to be king, what's with all this "listen to me or die" BS?







(and ROFLMAO at your egotism: "don't want to be" suggests "I could be, if I wanted")

Someone get Franky a cold glass of humility, lol

Well it's not hypocritical because there are certain things that are more harmful than others. I would definitely choose bottom-up, and as I said previously, I don't like to ban things, but certain things have to be discouraged.



Well some scammers are more talented than others, just look at the scammers around Bitcoin, some of them looted pretty big while others not so much.



Well sometimes news articles write about her. She was born and raised in east germany, and she is running a heavy socialist economy with big taxes and regulations, not hard to figure out her political leanings, especially after this immigration thing.



I have watched a few videos where his son cleared up a few misconceptions about him, but yes i think he indeed supports central banking and fiat, but i think he is  aleast low on regulation and taxes. Sort of like a compromize, which would at least be 1 step in the right direction.

But this was before bitcoin. Before bitcoin nobody could have imagined a world without CB, so you gotta hand it to him , he thought what it could be achieved in that context, now that we have bitcoin, all bets are off.

And economists will have to realize this at some point.

Democracy needs a central authority to enforce the vote system. Bitcoin is not a democracy, it's a voluntary voting system based on the individual's wish


Yes exactly majority of people are idiots, that is why you cannot allow stupid people to vote, or you end up in disaster.

A Satoshi monarchy  is not good either because he might be right on 1 thing but wrong on other 100.

So an oligarchy of a few 100 people is preferable, where they have the right expertise, each one can correct the error of the others,and nobody can become a monarch

What Friedman presided over in Chile wasn't exactly low taxes and regulation. It may have been sold that way, but it was a fascist system ultimately. Doesn't change the fact that, even though there's a big difference between what Friedman says and what he did, it doesn't invalidate the (good) principles he espoused but never practiced.

For instance, I think we all remember that video (recorded late 90's/early 2000's) where Friedman says "the internet will eventually produce a form of e-cash". He was right about that, and here we are.

the network is made up by the individuals. agreed and by connecting nodes together they form their own decentralized system without a corporate dictator or human leader.
emphasis distributed/diverse authority
however you and carlton want blockstream to be the central dictatorship removing the individual voting.

no one owns the network nor should own the network in the future.

stop flip flopping in the hope of gaining peoples favour into loving blockstream as a dictator


1 oligarchy is the same as a monarchy/authoritatian/dictatorship (EG royal FAMILY)(EG banking partnership)(EG UK conservative party)
we should atleast continue to have MANY GROUPS where they have the right expertise, each one can correct the error of the others,and nobody can become a monarch.

Really?  You want to impose an oligarchy?  Oligarchy is an authoritarian power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people.  That's what you're advocating right now.  One stop short of a full-blown dictatorship.

The majority of people would abandon this space in a heartbeat if that's what Bitcoin ever became.  Your oligarchy would have full control over a completely worthless coin.  Just like Ripple.

Seriously, fuck that.

But your picture is not accurate either. You cannot seriously compare the hard-forking mechanism as equivalent to a democratic system. It's an emergency feature, i.e BREAK CONSENSUS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY type of device. By telling people it's a democracy, you're encouraging the entitlement that lay-people should be making design decisions. They should not.

If Bitcoin development got infiltrated by crazies wanting to introduce ID tracking or permanent inflation, sure, break the glass and sound the alarm. And isn't it obvious that people trolling Bitcoin are always going to be claiming that it's time for the emergency split? Be careful what you wish for when promoting Bitcoin hard-forks as a democratic mechanism, that is an abuse of the system.

OMG (facepalm)
the "consensus mechanism" built into bitcoin since day one and your "hard-forking mechanism" are polar opposites.
bitcoin does not have a "hard-forking mechanism" to have a emergency break. people need to code in a node ban list. to break consensus.

no one has proposed a split (hard break). apart from blockstream who say if you dont want dictatorship split to an altcoin.
all other implementations want to USE the CONSENSUS to stick with one chain, with no corporate controlling dictatorship.

please learn consensus

bitcoin development is getting infiltrated by crazies wanting to introduce ID tracking or permanent inflation. its called blockstream.
even you want blockstream to increase the units of measure, then hide the inflation by rebranding how many units of measure constitute a btc.
even you want blockstream to have sidechains into the ID requiring hyperledger that blockstream are making with banks right now.
even you want blockstream to dictate terms of use of bitcoin and subverting anyones ability to vote in or out any blockstream feature.

your very hypocritical.

Well not a big forecast, lemme tell you a few of my forecasts:

-Full Internet economy (eventually all jobs will be online)
-Internet based healthcare (whenever somebody has a seisure or a heart attack it will be shared online and the closes medical or first aid person  (or robot) will come to rescue)
-etc etc...

It's not hard to do these forecasts, once you have the genie out of the box, we will probably see AI robots walking among us being our new "slaves". It's pretty easy to forecast where society is going.

What I am worried about is the lack of utilizing technology to the maximum. I mean we have the internet for 21 years, and it took 14 years to invent bitcoin? It is pretty lame.

I guess the conditions werent right in the 90's but still , even though all this advancements, we are very slow.

Humans exist for 1 million years, and it took 995,000 years to start building a civilization, and amongs the 5000 years of civilization, it took 4700 years to have the indistrial revolution. And so on.

So human efficiency is very very low <1%, if you think about it. This makes you wonder how advanced alien civilizations could be, if they had a head start, didnt got hit by  huge meteors, and were more efficient in evolution.

I worry that we wont live to see this great technology utilized to it's maximum capacity. I mean we still have a freaking debate over hardfork, while in 10 years we will all look back at it, as a silly fiasco as it was. Bitcoin is just now starting to really grow: sidechains, LN, and others.

We are just now stepping out of the cradle,and there is a aloooooooooooooooooot of work to do in bitcoin, it is still very early stages despide 7 years of existence.

Nobody owns the network, but certainly an oligarchy will own the majority of bitcoins. There wont be an authoritarian control over bitcoin, but there will be some influence from big bitcoin owners.


No, it's the same as a company, where a minority of shareholders own the company. To our knowledge this is very efficient, since most companies hit billions with this structure.

While your silly labour unions and democratic companies can hardly make it to the top 500 companies.

and there is the revelation.
you only care about the share price. not the morals or ethics of the economy/community/industry.
you and carlton want enron 2.0, you care about enrons share price. not the worlds electrical utility, safety, diverse distribution
vs
the world wants multiple independent electrical companies that come to a consensus of how much electricity is sent down power cables.

Surely you're not trying to pretend that's how the price of electricity is set! Dear, dear me...

i never mentioned price of electric.

reminder from earlier:
please learn consensus.

Your reply got me curious as to whether or not I had ever directly called Bitcoin a democracy or a democratic system.  I do genuinely think of it as an open market because of the inherent weaknesses of democracy, and oligarchy, for that matter.  Such centralised systems are entirely too prone to corruption.  I trust the open market:



And when some users said they wanted Bitcoin to work more like a democracy, I was pretty quick to point out the shortcomings of that:



I did, however, say the opposite, in that democracy in the real world would work better if it behaved more like crypto:


So yeah, I'm definitely not "telling people it's a democracy".  If anything, I want what we still delude ourselves into calling "democracy" in the outside world to be more like Bitcoin. 

Perhaps I'm just reading it the wrong way because you're effectively calling consensus itself an oligarchy.  To me that just feels perverse.    :-\

There are no benevolent oligarchies.  Sooner or later they'll be initiating transfer of wealth into their own pockets by fair means or foul.  Just more corrupt centralisation by another name.

We have power division well structured in bitcoin, that is unlikely to happen. Bitcoin is not like a private central bank.

It is administered publicly by nodes voting in a voluntary matter, while you also have the expertise of the oligarchs who hold the majority of bitcoins steering it in the right direction.

It's their money, they have invested in it, of course they want the best to succeed for bitcoin, it's not altruism, it's greed, but it works, and bitcoin is 10 billion thanks to that.

So there are 2 major forces, in fact even 3 (if there is separation between miners & oligarchs):   nodes, miners & oligarchs.

And you also have minor forces like :  bitcoin media & bitcoin developers who hold less power and only influence indirectly.


Hardly a centralized system  ;)

But you can see how it could become centralised if development is centralised and you start trying to tell people what code they can and can't run.  Telling people what code they can and can't run is authoritarian.  There is literally no denying that.  Either trust the open market, or stop pretending you're a libertarian.



The number of coins someone holds does not correlate to the amount of "expertise" they can demonstrate.  I don't care if they hold 1 coin or 1 million.  If they can't demonstrate the simple understanding that anyone is free to modify and run the code they want, they have no expertise and invested poorly.  And again, they should stop pretending they're a libertarian.

atleast you are now using words like
majority
public
and when talking about oligarchs you are using plural rather then singular.

lets see how long this lasts before you flip flop like carlton does.
also the devs dont hold the majority of coins. most devs have proven to be paid in fiat.

however, the general mindset of everyone: miners, pools, users and devs.
is that they should not want to screw with the network and lose their funds, big or small.
thus all should compromise to get to a majority agreement of the rules to all get the features they all want.

now if carlton drivels on about 2mb is bad. then he needs to read his blockstreams own desire of 4mb. which they deem safe

so while realbitcoin has had a realization:

2mb was the compromise and general agreement as of last year.(no need to bring up 8mb, 32mb, 100mb.. that debate died last year)
then this year blockstream vetoed and instead wanted 1mb base 4mb weight. refusing 2mb
so the logical compromise to get a consensus again is 2mb base 4mb weight. thus everyone gets what they want
and the bloat is within acceptable boundaries everyone agrees with.

then all the groups can simply concentrate on getting to this consensus where everyone is happy.
and then let the consensus activate when:
1) devs have coded, reviewed, tested and implemented a node with such.
2) nodes to then flag and attain a 95% acceptance of the nodes network wanting it. safe risk of orphans(under 5%)
3) followed by a grace period to reduce risk of orphans.
4) mining pools then review and implement theirs,
5) mining pools flag their blocks to show their acceptance after seeing the nodes acceptance, upto 95%
-- while (3)-(5) user nodes will be over 95% to even further reduce orphan risk).
6) mining pools still give themselves a grace period to reduce the minority orphans..
-- while (3)-(6) user nodes will be WELL over 95%, while (6) mining pools will be WELL over 95%to even further reduce orphan risk).
7) to eventually activate the rules.

-- and even then with the rules active. miners are not forced to only make blocks over 1mb

so the question is.
do you agree that if there is actual consensus. the network should grow? (with no --oppose-rule banning trick(intentional split))
or
do you prefer corporate dictatorship to avoid bitcoins main security feature(consensus), and cause every rule change to be a intentional split

Nobody puts a gun to their head and forces them to use 1 version of bitcoin.


But at least they have steak in it, and demonstrate long term loyalty since they are invested. Contrast that with the millions of other BTC users who hold barely coins and could flip-flop between ETH and other currencies, while preaching gospel to bitcoin users.

They should hardly have authority, only loyal bitcoin users should.

Yes I agree, but hardly anyone wants a 2mb block, everyone agrees that Segwit is the safe and sound way to grow with lightning network and sidechains. Bitcoin can hardly scale otherwise, the blockchain will be too big and nobody will have enough bandwidth to host it and becomes centralized.

I hope people are not so stupid to fall for a 2mb block, as the easy temporary fix, that will bring a catastrophy later on.


I like how bitcoin's powers are separated so that neither authoritarians get in power, nor socialists, but I fear the left could still do more damage than authoritarians.

Okay, but calling the consensus mechanism a "free market of ideas" is also wrong! The clue's in the name... the Bitcoin protocol rules are designed to make eveyrone on the network participate in the same way. If the consensus mechanism was a genuine free market, there would be constant jockeying for position about which ruleset dominates. This is supposed to be a currency; how do you think the BTC exchange rate would respond if we changed dev teams every time someone starts shouting "FIRE!"?

Here's how I see it:

• Bitcoin development is a free market: submit a pull request and see how it is received
• The cryptocurrency development world is a free market: create a new coin, see how well it is received
• The consensus mechanism is not a free market. It is an emergency escape hatch, to be used against an infiltrated dev team, NOT for disrupting Bitcoin's direction with competing coin designs

You seem to subscribe to that last part: that there should be real conflict going on within the development of Bitcoin itself. Promoting that is dangerous, and it makes me wonder how invested you are in Bitcoin.

Well, all I can say is we're close to agreement, but I don't think we'll ever be quite fully there.  I respect your view as you've outlined it, though.

Incidentally, I'm not saying there should be conflict within development, just that it doesn't matter when developers don't agree, because it's ultimately not their decision.

In contrast, here's how I see it:

• Bitcoin Core development is a free market: submit a pull request and see how it is received
• Bitcoin development as a whole is a free market: anyone is free to code their own proposals if other developers disagree, see how well it is received
• The cryptocurrency development world is a free market: if your believe your idea is incompatible with Bitcoin, create a new coin, see how well it is received
• The consensus mechanism is not absolutely a free market. It is an emergency escape hatch, to be used if those securing the network no longer agree with the function of the code

But fair enough if you disagree.

catastrophy??
how..

how is 2mb more of a catastrophy that blockstreams 4mb.
how is consensus agreement more of a catastrophy that intentional split.

please explain how over 95% of nodes and pools agreeing is a catastrophy
again dont run down the blockstream rabbit hole of dictator or split.
and stick with a reality of consensual agreement

explain why something like 2mb base 4mb weight is bad

I already did like 100x in other threads, I am tired of repeating myself and you seem like you enjoy asking the same questions over and over again that were already refuted many times.

your rhetoric as well as carltons for months now is of controversial and intentional splits and doomsdays. i asked you to stay with reality of consensus, something you have not done because each time people try asking. you divert it back to the other doomsdays

How is it controversial when 87.57% of the community agrees with me:

https://coin.dance/nodes/image/share.png


source: https://coin.dance/nodes


It is you who is pushing for division with this Blockstream conspiracy scare tactics, while only 12.43% of the people agree with you. But you want your 2mb pushed through despite you only having 12.43% support.

love the numbers. but i also love how those numbers keep adding up without the context.

smart people have done actual counts, so in context
out of 4427 core node:
only 1615 desire segwit (0.13 flag)
the other 2812 break down as
only 1737 that agreed to the consensus round tables segwit then baseblock pledge(0.12 flag)
and 1075 have not decided anything in the last year.

out of 5276 network node:
only 1615 desire segwit (0.13 flag)

saying 1615 adamant about segwit, beats 2812 other nodes in the same camp.. is wrong on so many levels.
saying 1615 adamant about segwit, beats 3661 other nodes in the network.. is wrong on so many levels.

even funnier, even amungst those numbers desiring segwit some are hoping that core sticks to the pledge of eventually raising the base blocksize.
so if it was a segwit debate with no hope of base blocksize growth, its less than 1615 out of 5276 nodes.

but have a nice day with your brushed over numbers that does not explain reality.
much like saying someone is going to vote for hilary clinton because they have bumper sticker has been there since bill clintons era.

Good post. Only idiots are supporting a blocksize increase, since they don't care about the fact that doing so would make running nodes pretty much impossible for the average person, which kills the network decentralization.

They don't give a fuck as long as the fees are cheap, that's all they care about. They have bricks for brains.


So what will you say once segwit inevitably gets activated?

he'll pretend it's what he always supported (he's already stopped attacking segwit with all the "incompatible with Bitcoin" and "altcoin" stuff).

Leftism always ends up in big government. Big government has the potential to destroy bitcoin and altcoins by throwing regulation after regulation on it and thus making it inaccessible for the common man. Leftist ideology always achieves the opposite of what they want. The path to hell is paved with good intentions. The only way cryptocurrency can flourish is when government stays the heck away from it.

no
you flip flopping troll.
go learn the facts for once.
its obvious you dont know the facts because you are still ignorant about the 4mb part of it, by saying 2mb is "too much bloat" (i laugh each time you say it)
its obvious you dont know the facts because you are still ignorant about how it works.

segwit is not the perfect utopia your leader suggest. it has limitations and flaws. it like LN has a place, but it is not the CAPACITY solution.
go research and stop pretending that segwit is the only solution, when we all know its blockstream your defending.. not bitcoin
its why not even a third (1615 out of 5276) have opted for it, yet you pretend its a sure thing at the current 1mb base 4mb weight proposal.

have you really jumped back down deep into the dictatorial rabbit hole. or is it just a contractual obligation where you can be a libertarian at weekends (outside of contract hours)

Oh please Franky, you deliberately left out the inconvenient part of your "4MB bloatchain" nonsense, but I expect you've probably been thoroughly discredited for all to see now.


Without me, you barely have anyone to respond to you. Here's my offer: from now-on, you have to pay me to respond to your posts, per post. I'll accept offers by PM, and publish them in a thread on the Meta board. Have fun.



(oh and I only accept BTC. Keep "your monero", lol)

finally carlton agrees not to reply to me
im not paying so carlton should not reply
WIN WIN
lets hope carlton sticks to his rule of not replying

if carlton replies to my post without my expressly requiring him to answer
if carlton replies where my username appears in a post of his. or a quote of mine appears in his post
if carlton tries to bait me..
then carlton owes me.

now rational people can have conversations that include:
data, information, facts, statistics and logic.

unlike the unbacked up waffle from carlton.

have a nice day carlton.

Nonsense, if people are against Core & Segwit then why dont they install the Classic or Unlimited clients?

You cant be against Segwit but pro Core , because Core = Segwit, and it's outlined perfecty:

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/

So you are most likely talking nonsense.

Didn't check the entire thread, but in case no one brought it up:

@OP - what's your view on Theymos' idea of destroying Satoshi's coins (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1469099.0) (before someone steals them)?

Will you admit that your beloved censor is in fact a leftist himself, or will you go through mental gymnastics to prove that stealing/someone's property (and not just someone, the very creator of Bitcoin) for the benefit of the community is somehow in the spirit of libertarianism?

I disagree on that particular issue. We cannot know if satoshi is alive or not, or if he wants to claim his coins or not, or if it is holding them longterm.

It is pretty unlikely that he has the keys to them, since he never moved it despite many many crypto vulnerabilities have been discovered since.

But still there is a chance that he still has them and holding on to them, so we should not steal that from him, even if somebody steals them it would be less than 6% of the market cap, and given the thief cant liquidate it instantly, so the price won't even drop 6% as a result, and maybe the thief will start investing it and not selling it.

So yeah its a bad idea, nobody is perfect, everyone can make some mistakes.

Totally leading question. To answer, one must accept that they love Theymos and that Theymos indulges in censorship.

and implying that de-fusing the Satoshi coins is theft is just not tenable. "Property destruction" would be apt, but you're laying on far too much exaggeration and subversion for anyone to treat your trolling seriously

you can run core without actually being pro core.
you can be against core and running it to test out vulnerabilities
you can be neutral and running it simply by not even caring about the 'band camps'.

but as you have shown.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/  -v0.12 proposes eventual blocksize upgrade
click on roadmap.

then v0.13 relates to segwit 1mb base 4mb weight

again
out of 4427 core node:
only 1615 desire segwit (0.13 flag)
the other 2812 break down as
only 1737 that agreed to the consensus round tables segwit.. then baseblock pledge(0.12 flag)
and 1075 have not decided anything in the last year.

so dont try saying ALL 4427 nodes want segwit 1mb 4mb. especially with all the flip flopping backtracks done by blockstream employed after december last year.
if you want segwit to be active. dont blame the 16% that are not core..
blame the 69% of the network that have not agreed. or even if you want to get to the point.
blame the 63% of core users that have not agreed to segwit

Wrong. OP, to whom the question was addressed, took my 'trolling' seriously and provided serious reply.
Exaggeration was intentional in response to the (imo) exaggerated topic.
'Theft' may not be appropriate term, but I sense many/most libertarians would agree that destroying someone else's property with your own financial gain in mind (reduced supply + increase in value from removal of uncertainty) is equally bad as theft, if not worse (there's always a chance of recovering stolen goods).


OK, at least you're somewhat consistent in your views, but since you seem to understand that not everything is black/white and on some subjects, you cannot really draw a clear line between leftists and libertarians, then why not having a constructive discussion on a specific subject (if you have anything new to add to it), rather than just taking short-cut by dismissing opposing side as 'leftists'.

No, I was right.

Not only is theft not the appropriate term, but asset appreciation is not the intention behind the suggestion. So your whole post was irrelevant to this discussion, as a proposal to protect the value of the entire system has nothing to do with politics.

And so your intentions are laid bare: trolling this board, and trolling Bitcoin in general.

Abstinence from voting =/= a No vote

Did you know that many political votes have a turnout of less then 50%?

Just give them time, not everyone is uppgrading yet, they need to test the new wallet first and prepare for the uppgrades.

---

And this is actually good, it's good if not everyone uppgrades at the same time, so if a zero day bug is discovered, the entire network is not jeopardized.

But with a hardfork you have to uppgrade all at once, which puts the network to an enourmous risk.

Yeah but if a guy is right on 99 things and wrong on 1 thing, I wont just abandon my support for him for 1 small mistake. Besides if the community responds to it, we can correct that mistake together. It's not like people here are fanatic about their beliefs, we all make mistakes, and we can all help to correct them.

However, I have demonstrated that leftist ideas are totalitarian and evil, and so far nobody gave solid evidence to refute my claims.

Sorry, but I have! Classical liberalism is considered left wing, and some left identifying people reject socialism and communism, they consider themselves liberal only. Libertarianism and classical liberalism share the same roots, the main difference is that libertarianism makes a case for removing government altogether, whereas classical liberalism argues for a minimal state.

you had me at the first sentance and then you lost yourself with the second one.
right now BU, XT, classic, and all the others are RUNNING NOW
people can review the code now.

secondly to activate a rule upgrade, over 95% would be already running just to get the activation going. WHICH TAKES TIME

its not about everyone suddenly jumps onboard after activation. instead they would already be onboard before activation and the activation is simply then using the rules that are already available to the network

You are truly a master of spinning words franky.

I am not talking about the consensus, but about uppgrading the clients simultaneously, in say 1-2 days. This would expose the network to an enourmous risk, since any hacker who has a zero day bug for that client, will be able to disrupt or destroy the network entirely.

So a gradual change from 0.12 to 0.13.1 is preferable in weeks or months ,so that everyone can test it.


I would call that centrist , not leftist.

If somebody supports gay marriage that doesnt mean that they support 80% taxes too....

in 1-2 days??
are you saying that anything not blockstream:
cannot have a consensus that requires 95% running nodes, which takes time for people to code, review and run. to get to 95%
followed by a grace period, then
cannot have a consensus that requires 95% mining pools, which takes time for people to code, review and run. to get to 95%
followed by a grace period.

but instead all nodes do nothing and then magically jump to 95% and activate in 1-2days.?
funnily enough no proposal has ever proposed such a silly brainfarts.

instead realise it takes time to get to 95%.. which strangely you agree is right for core.. but strangely think is not right for anything not core.
not even sure where u are getting this 1-2 days from. but im guessing its out of the doomsday hat

Oh really? So what's the true intention behind the suggestion?
Let me guess, destroying someone's property to retain market value of your asset (with possible appreciation being fortunate side effect) is somehow completely different than doing the same but stating 'appreciation' as a main goal?

You just got carried away here a little bit didn't you?

You are talking bullshit again, i specifically said in that post that I wasnt talking about the consensus but about the technical problems given by uppgrading at the same time.

Read my post again, i am not going to repeat myself.

Ok, but would do you think they would call it? :)

Well classical liberalism is definitely not leftist , its center.

-Abolition of slavery
-End abuse of minorities
&
-Low government regulation
-Low taxes


It pretty much sits in the center, but the word liberal has been hijacked, so the word libertarian is what it is called today.

ok drop the "upgrading at the same time". that is your failure of understanding.
because nodes are running right now and users will stagger their upgrades over time until there is 95% upgradeded. followd by grace periods. followed by mining pools upgrading at a staggered time period until they too have 95%. followed by a grace period.

knowing nodes will be running for a long time before blocks are made bigger. rules out alot of things. as it would be coded, reviewed, tested and implemented long before consensus..

after all many implementations are running already right now. no one is waiting for 2017. they have the code running now. code can be reviewed by anyone new wanting to use it now. and then run it way before anything actually happens.

but lets put the "upgraded at same time" rhetoric to one side. because as i said majority would have upgraded over a staggered period

but lets take something comparable to your subtle hint of a future bug
lets say your talking about a bug where going over 1mb reveals something no one realized before that only pops up when miners go over a certain number of bytes.(1,001kb for instance)
well then. we have..year 2013:
the 500k db bug, while the nodes had a 1mb consensus in place. in 2013
majority of nodes had double capacity consensus rules but as soon as miners made a block over 500kb. a bug appeared in the way nodes stores a block locally.

if there was a bug then miners just go back to making under 500kb blocks where there was no issues and a fix is found before trying again to go above 500kb again.
hmm.. wait.
2013 there were over 7000 nodes. and bitcoin still exists. blocks are bigger than 500kb

now replace 1mb for 2mb, replace 500kb for 1mb and replace 2013 for 2017
is that what you are talking about?

your doomsday about exceeding a Xbyte block revealing a bug has played out 3 years ago and bitcoin still exists.
care to take off your blockstream utopian hat off and put on a sceptical hat and deal with the if/when segwit has a bug.
and describe how that will play out.
or will you brush it aside and uphold sgwit as a masterpiece of bug free utopia.

if you wish to be open minded and be sceptical.
atleast take into account that segwit (though socially required rather than technically required) will also require 95% acceptance before things change.

i truly hope you put the skeptical hat on and plough out a segwit doomsday. especially emphasising segwit would be at 95% acceptance.

Before the French revolution, anything Rightwing was pro-Aristocracy / Monarchy / Ancien Regime while anything leftwing was pro-Republicanism, or 'power to the people'. If you use that measure, any form of republicanism, aka a 'peoples government' or 'chosen government' is in reality leftist. This is why the Bolsheviks saw the French revolution as the predecessor to the Communist revolution. There's a reason why socialist countries always call themselves republics. To any European Monarchist, the US Republic is inherently leftist because of its Revolutionary roots -> rebellion against the authority and Monarchy of the United Kingdom.

This new system of left and right originated out of the US somewhere in the 19th century, and now they use an altogether different center point of the political spectrum and somehow they are right wing. Monarchists don't really like the fact that Republicans have hijacked the term right-wing, because in reality both the US republic and the now gone Soviet Republic are born from the same womb: the French revolution.

Not that I am a Monarchist. I've just met some and their viewpoint on things are really interesting.

Yes I agree, but the monarchy is a failed system because it centralizes power in the hand of 1 man or woman, and because of a lot of incest inbreeding between royalties, it sometimes creates crazy mentally ill kinds that become tyrants like Nero or Caligula.

So there has to be a balance between the powers, so that if 1 crazy person decides to do a stupid thing, others could block him, so an oligarchy is a more stable form of right wing.

in the UK the royal family.. as someone who shant be named would say.. owns the country by right. and has then due to the peoples wish formed 2 oligarchies. the house of lords and the house of commons.. to have the authority over the country and manage her estate. and they would par-lay(negotiate) in a meeting place called parliament.
the queen invites her chosen people into authority in the lords chamber and the people choose their desire for who has authority in the commons chamber.
the queen still reigns over parliament and has veto power over any consensus agreed in parliament

this is still not good because there is still a power house that can become onesided.

many people now want local councils to have authority of their own area's while coming to a general agreement of national issues within parliament. without the oligarchy of 2 chambers.

american version would be the senators meeting at the senate to discuss U.S. national issues and come to an agreement, while still having local powers to do their own thing within the national rules.

however i see no point in one guy "presiding" over the senate, one women reigning over parliament with veto powers over any consensus made

I would have no problem with democracy in politics if people were smarter and more informed when voting, and of course given better candidates.

But bitcoin is not subject to public vote, it is wrong to consider bitcoin public property, while it has a public essence to it, in the sense that anyone can join, that doesnt make them automatically legitimate bitcoin authorities.

The only people that should have authority in bitcoin should be the bitcoin owners. So if the top 1000 bitcoin holders want Segwit, their wish should be granted, since they are the majority of the owners. Just like any company, this is the default organization system.

there are millions of bitcoiners.
but the votes are not done by the millions of lite-node/webwallet users.
relax its not hill billy jack or scouser jake voting for bitcoin rules. its usually smart people doing more then just "spending".

they are going to full node users/pool owners (usually smarter than average joe) and the 'pledge' they vote for is not made by the users but the devs (smarter then node operators) where the node operators vote for the pledge they deem best.

having just one pledge is bad. one leader is bad. thats a dictatorship

these pledges have been developed over time, with compromises and concessions in most cases, to ensure there becomes no single dictatorial ruler presiding or reigning over the network. but instead adjustments in all the pledges untill they all meet to get to a 95% agreement. allowing all parties to not be a central authority but all come to an agreement.

but as you say if it was opened up to a uninterested public vote of millions of people. it may end up like the UK talent show..
voting a dog as the most talented brit.. twice..
or
voting in politics, a pigs-head f**ker twice.

but suggesting only centralized elitists should vote, is worse.

Let's not go that far yet, the bitcoin development is pretty good and not corrupted.

This is not like how the bitcoin foundation allegedly got corrupted.

So unless you can prove that the current bitcoin development team is corrupt like your local politicians, you should stop calling for their replacement.


Then I am not saying that people should not vote, everyone who owns bitcoin should have the right to vote, and I implied that the top 1000 users probably have 50%+1 share so their opinion counts.

If we discount the 1m BTC that satoshi left untouched (and probably wont be used to vote), maybe even the top 10,000 addresses make up the 50%+1 share. So yeah, that is not an "elitist" if we are talking about 10,000 addresses.

lol
and this is coming from someone that has more than enough to make a vote under your proposal
so now you want "greed" to dictate "protocol".
so now you want coinbase that hoards 500k peoples funds to have a large vote. purely by holding other peoples funds
im guessing the US marshals get a vote too. aswell as whoever holds the bitfinex stash.. these people should have more power?why?
screw it.. lets get the bitfinex hacker or winklevoss with 200k coins each to spread the coins over 9800 addresses. and dominate the vote
just being "rich" does not mean your smart

sorry but those with large funds should not dictate the rules of nodes. nodes should decide what they want to have.
if the rich want a vote on what the nodes should do then they should run a node themselves.. (wait for it).. they already do in most cases.
which brings the debate back to node count, followed by a second vote afterwards for a pool vote.

Well yes you have a point here, but why are people so stupid to hold the money in centralized exchanges. It is really shitty that money gets ceentralized, but this is how it is.

Maybe things like Bitsquare will break up exchanges a little bit.





Well I guess things are good as they are for now, I dont want anything to change, I just want people to be independent.

It works out well if you think about it:  Nodes & Miners vote, Bitcoin owners dictate -> If nodes and miners are naughty, the owners sell their coins as a form of protest.

Powers are balanced well, except that bitcoin owners dont have a public platform where they could express their opinions. Most people hold their financial privacy sacrosanct, so unless there would be an anonymous way to vote with verified bitcoin wealth, this could be an issue.

Something like this (BUT MORE TRANSPARENT & VERIFIABLE):
http://bitcoinocracy.com/

This is getting old now.  Consider even the slightest pretense of pleasantries spent.   >:(


No one should have authority in Bitcoin.  That's the entire fucking point.  If you believe any person or group should have authority, you are a far bigger threat than any "forker" could ever be.  If you want authority, you signed up for the wrong thing.  We only have freedom here.

"Nobody owns or controls Bitcoin."

It's literally the biggest selling point.  Why do you insist on trying to fuck that up with your deluded authoritarian bullshit?  You act like you're "a Hero of Bitcoin" but I've heard Fox News presenters with a better grasp of the concept than you do.  They're renowned for being completely gormless, so if they can get it, what's your excuse?  You clearly don't understand this at all.

People having right to their private property = Freedom!

coins yes. you have the right to own them. but the network and coin are 2 separate things.
try not to confuse the matter by merging bitcoin the spendable fund unit. and bitcoin the network, purely because they are named the same thing.

this is why people prefer to refer to the coins as BTC rather than bitcoin. to help show what they are talking about.

btc is the private property of the private key holder.
bitcoin the network has no central location. it is made up of ~5200 diverse nodes with different codebases.
EG core V0.13 is totally different code from core v0.12
EG core V0.13 is totally different code from BU..

yet they are all running happily right now all validating transactions and relaying them, validating blocks and relaying them.
there is not and should not be a single location/jurisdiction limit of a node.
there is not and should not be a single codebase. (even you have said this by having the zero day bug debate.)

diversity and then concessions to form a consensus is how satoshi found the best route to growth.
the issues are that those opposing using consensus 'pretend' to have agreed and back track later. just to cause delays
the issues are that those opposing using consensus will demand everyone 'f**k off' to dilute the votes into their favour.

however if we just accept consensus is the only way.
then we can concentrate on getting the compromise where everyone is in majority happy.
which should have happened last year. before all the back tracking and flip flopping about splitting as the option while crying that splitting is a doomsday in the same sentence by the same people.

Yes.  Your private keys give you the right to do whatever you want with your coins.  You can sell them, trade them, give them away, destroy them, hodl them, or anything else you damn well please.  That's entirely your business.  No one gives a shit.  

If, however, you think for a second that your authority extends beyond that point, then you show me in the code where it says that.

Or better yet, do what I've been saying all damn thread.  Modify the code.  You are free to create your own client, so you can implement your glorious new power structure in OligarchCoin.  See how the market reacts.  I'll even give you some code to get you started:


If you would happily sacrifice the very thing that gives Bitcoin its resilience so that you can stamp your authoritarian views on it, then you are a vile, insidious cancer and I trust the market to recognise you as such.

Listen here, I dont want to change the code or do hardforks like you guys. You are really masters at spinning my words.

I was only saying that by holding bitcoins you essentially own a part of the network. The nodes/miners are like the custodians or caretakers of the network.

So it's like the electrician or IT guy at the bank, he makes sure that the cables work and the bank servers are online. He does not own the bank, he is just making sure that the bank is online and can do it's job. The bank owns itself.


Same way with bitcoin, private key owners own the network, while the maintenance job is delegated to the miners/nodes. It is they who own the network, because if everyone were to sell, they would be hosting/mining a 0$ marketcap coin.

So all the essential power should lie in the private key holder's hands, because their value makes up the network essentially, the mining machines and node computers are just third party devices just like the bank servers or building that may be rented.

So essentially the owners have and should have the real power in their hands. Now this power implies persuasion rather than coercion, because you cannot hold a gun to the node's head, that would be very very bad. But you can persuade a node to uppgrade to 0.13.2 for example if you say that a big whale will sell his coins if they don't obey.


So it's private property, essentially a corporation, nodes and miners could do what they are doing, but the final authority is in the hand of the capitalists.

---

This is how it is. The market is ruling bitcoin. And so far things are working very well, we have a high agreement rate between Core developers and the market, because the price is going up and had not gone up so high if the agreement were not that good.

You know what smart people are doing? they are coding and inventing things like segwit, condifential transactions, lightning network and so on, instead of posting on forums all day.
The smart people are working on the software.

market does not rule bitcoin.
only fiat lovers think it does, because they do not understand bitcoin

if a rich person with alot invested in btc wants a vote he should run a node.
if a richguy thinks he can persuade nodes to jump into corporation camp A because whale threatens to sell coins.. guess what. a smart node operator wont change.
infact a node will actually not care in the slightest. or atmost.. think a whale selling coins is good.. its called a discount day when the price drops. people get to buy coins cheaper due to a whale dump, so essentially a dump is an empty threat and the opposite of a threat.

in short the whale has no power.
money and being rich should=no vote over how the network works. instead those actually securing the network should have a vote.

if a rich guy wants a vote on security he should actually be part of the security by running a node. then he gets a vote

your analogy should be:

electrician / IT guy = dev
bank server = node operator

where the bank is free to choose which IT/electrician they use to fix a bug in the system.
where the node is free to choose which dev group they use to fix a bug in the system.

where the bank customers are free to choose a different bank or remove their funds
where the coin holders are free to choose a node or sell their coins

just saying "im rich, please change bank rules" does not cause any change.
especially if you are not part of a specific bank you wish to change.

EG rich guy uses webservice at virginmoney.com but wants HSBC to change.. rich guy doesnt even have a proper bank account.. goodluck to him

That is not how markets work. If the demand is constant and price drops, the price wont go back high. So if many whales dump, the price will stay low at least for a considerable time period.

So that is bad for all people. The only direct power a whale has is the power to veto, if they dislike bitcoin, they sell, it's that simple. And then we shall see who will remain then.

But as I said, this is not a problem at all now, we are talking about very theoretical things. I love bitcoin, most whales , nodes, and miners love it too, so there is no point debating this.


Well a rich guy also has the money to hire programmers and contribute to the code ***cough*** the Blockstream you are against ***cough***  and create security items like hardware wallets, to help bitcoin.

And they are already doing this, so dont tell me rich people are useless. Everyone contributes to bitcoin, be that a faucet user, or a hardware wallet creator.

If you aren't willing to run a node, your opinion doesn't count. People shitposting on reddit and on forums opinion is irrelevant. You need to put proof of work in other words, people running nodes and supporting the software, not some nonsense about how "people" want bigger blocks. Notice the big quotes on "people".


This is what would happen with bigger blocks. Fewer and fewer people would be able to run their own node at home. Use your brain for once.

Yes.





That depends how rich you are, if you hold 100,000$ you are considered rich in Ghana. But you probably cant change a major banks rules.


If you hold 10 billion$, you can buy a lot of shares in a bank and have enormous influence. In bitcoin if you hold 100 BTC, you are rich in some people's eyes.


But if you hold 2 million BTC, you have the power to crash the price by 12%, that can cause a lot of miners to go out of business, so that is raw power in of itself.

Having bitcoins is just like having shares in a company, it gives you real leverage.

first part. if whales sell.. invstors buy.. price drama is meaningless and is just a shift of wealth.. on a global long term out of box.. bothing changes.
for every sell there is a buy.
what however would change.. is if whales didnt sell.. but  put their coins into a address where their is no privkey. taking a large amount of coin out of circulation permenently has more persuasive power.. but just selling them doesnt.


second part.
exactly my point. if the rich want power over bitcoin they need to get involved and actually be part of the consensus. you have proven my point.
blockstream investors get a vote by being part of blockstream and thus have a connection to the nodes.

but just standing on the sidelines not even having a real tie to security of bitcoin has no power.
$1mill funded address vs $0.10 funded address does not matter. it does not cause more hashing power to magically protect the network more. or less.
what does protect the network is the diversity in getting involved with the network by being part of the peer to peer(node)  security

do not confuse the tx peer to peer spending. with the network peer to peer security. they are 2 separate things.
hoarding coin in an address does not affect difficulty. does not affect hashing blocks does not affect consensus.

rich people cant just proclaim their wealth. they actually have to DO something

just having $10bill but not buying shares.. makes you powerless

so yes if you have money you can buy alot of shares/ have alot of NODES to gain influence.(though this can be deemed a sybil attack)

again just having funds in a bank does not make you own the bank. you have to be part of board of share holders
again just having BTC in address does not make you own network. you have to be part of consensus of nodes

I dont think you understand how markets work, because only the bid column counts, if there are no buyers you cannot liquidate your wealth into equal amount of value in other currency. So a deep bid column is critical.

If people are selling, the bid column gets thinner, and as a result price usually drops to (ask+bid)/2 levels.

So a whale selling is a big deal, because if nobody buys up the excessive ask orders, then the price will go down. It is a powerful form of veto.



Of course, I am sure people who have > 500,000$ in bitcoin host their own node, and broadcast their transactions from there. It would really be a small cost to for that security.

Especially if they are investors, they probably invest in other businesses, that host nodes as well.

So a whale owning bitcoins, and investing it in many places, is good for bitcoin, and makes the node count grow.


I am sure most rich people have shares in the banks they hold their money in, there is no reason to not have a stake in your own financial protection.

Same with bitcoin, rich people host nodes, hire programmers , fund audits of code, ,etc...

its a powerful DISCOUNT DAY. .. temporary price drama.. sellers lose due to price drop, buys gain due to discount..
infact id take my buy orders off the market and let them drop it and then buy even cheaper.
now for the big picture.
its just temporary price drama.. Past: person A had it.. future: person B has it.. overall bitcoin has not been destroyed, there are stil 16m coins in circulation. all that has changed is whos hand it is in..

but just holding 200k in coins. has no power alone.. it does not improve security if 1 person has 200k coins or 100 people have 2k coins.. actualy being a node and actually doing something more then holding makes you worthy of having a say of the network.

and they should use the nodes as the vote. not just waving a public key in the air.

You still dont understand.

If the bid column is thin, the price collapses. The ask column usually follows the bid, because matching orders get executed.But if there is no bid column, the coins are worth shit, there is no market then.

So it does matter how thick the bid column, is and how much you can sell. If there is not enough orders, or not enough oders in the future, then bitcoin price drops.

What is the price? Its the highest bid order you can sell, if you cant sell at that level, then you lose money.

If you bought for 1m $ @ 600$ ASK price, and sell at 580 bid price, then you lose 33,333.33$. It's that simple.

I hope I dont have to explain basic math to you.






There are no people who are rich and do nothing. Most people who got rich like Voorhes and others, are building projects and doing good service for the bitcoin economy.

If you got rich outside, and put your money in bitcoin just for safekeeping, even then, you might use your other powers to promote bitcoin.

I see dozens of big investors constantly on TV talking about bitcoin, sure they are bitcoin owners, and they are promoting it, call it greed or whatever, but they are helping.

So pretty much everyone who has a lot of coins is helping bitcoin, because they have a direct stake in it. Thats how greed works,






Why are you so obsessed with the nodes?

A very rich guy can setup 100,000 fake nodes easily with multiple IP addresses. But he wont, so they have the power to rule over bitcoin , but they wont, because it is not in their interest.

But you should not ignore money, it is a big power to have a lot of money, and one way or the other they will have influence in bitcoin.

i do. if im a buyer. why would i be grabbing coins at $600 if the price was $580.

like i said id cancel my buy orders.. which means i am not a "taker", but a "maker" my orders would be on the the orderline 0-580. i would not be part of the 600+ group.
so id cancel my orders, which as you said to make the price easier to drop and make the discount day even better offer for me.

i would ask why are you so obsessed with the price drama that is only temporary and has no affect on security.
remember a seller cannot sell unless there is a buyer.. it doesnt matter what the price is. they cannot get rid off their coins unless some one buys them.
bitcoins dont just disapear and sellers may not even be able to get rid of all of their coins even if they tank the price.
their power is limited and buyers have more power and dropping the price is not a threat but a positive.


but saying just having money and waving a public key at some website by signing a message to say "i vote for A" is not helping. and has nothing to do with bitcoin security.
we both agree if those with money want a vote, they should get involved. and not just wave their money in the air.

again waving a signed message to say "i vote for A" should cause a bitcoin rule to change. then thats just "buying votes".
those involved in the rules should have the power to vote on what rules they want to have.. not some rich guy, who is just there to be rich.
as for why im obsessed about nodes. its simple nodes are the security of bitcoin.
afterall seems in spring this year you and others were arguing that R3 investing funds into bitcoin was bad. but this autumn your saying R3 investing money is good.
hint if you deem blockstream funding which then funds matt corallo, gmaxwell, luke jr and others is good. then check out R3 involvement in blockstream since March.. hypocrisy: hate XT due to R3 funding, love blockstream due to R3 funding

anyway.. this brings us back round to the main topics hypocrisy

people have been telling you that the lefty-righty debate is deceptive because it explains nothing.
you do realise that banks love socialism.. they love having the social pot of money and when things go wrong they get to cry and get a bailout from that social pot.
you do realise thatt at the same time they love authoritarianism because they want a monopoly and be in control.
simultaneously they hate authoritarianism because regulations are a headache and they want deregulation.
they love monarchy because the peoples "trust" in what is illustrated on a bank note. (queens head in the UK) brings value to the bank note. yet they hate monarchy for the same reason as hating regulation.

as for individual people.
everyone can fit into both left and right both at the same time. because they may hate something for one reason but be shown to love it for another reason.
left and right are an empty non descriptors to cause a divide by confusion. where only the sheep think they belong in one of the options because they dont see the big picture.
and then in politics one party says "im left" and another says "im right" where really they are as bad/good as eachother

Yes, everyone contributes to bitcoin including those noise makers on this forum because one way or the other you get to see them make good suggestion that can help improve the condition of bitcoin not to talk more of a rich person that has all the resources to sponsor people who can bring positive impact with bitcoin.

Ok, what do you think about this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/59kflj/its_becoming_clear_to_me_that_a_lot_of_people/


While increasing the bitcoin capacity one way or the other is good (preferably not hardfork).

You have to realize that by making the burden of nodes harder, we are losing on the bitcoin security.

This is the hypocrisy that you are telling, you would love a 2mb hardfork, but you also ignore that that diminishes the node count, which you have been talking about being so important to you.

Even when Lightning is available, opening and closing a payment channel still involves an entry to the blockchain, so an increase to the blocksize at some point is inevitable.  It says in the Lightning whitepaper itself that, even in ideal circumstances, it could only scale to ~35 million users without touching the blocksize.  To put that into perspective, that's roughly the population of the Greater Tokyo Area.

Yes at some point but not now. Not now when a large portion of earth population has shitty mobile internet with like 500mb daily limit download.

Lets stretch it another 5 years, and hope that in that amount of time, these shiity ISPs will uppgrade their junk and give a decent internet to people.

lol core weight is upto 4mb
whether its 1mb base 4mb weight
whether its 2mb base 4mb weight

the burden is the same

but i do love your endless uses of umbrella terms that do not have defined explanations.
you say things like left-right that anyone can flip anyone into either side.
but also from other topics.. you use "hard fork" as a single answer..
however, there are atleast 3 possible outcomes, due to atleast 3 different scenarios that all are under the umbrella term hard fork
1. consensual upgrade
2. controversial
3. intentional split

as for your rich guy deserves a vote..
if he USES the coin to:
pay for devs to develop a more secure implementation
starts a business making prebuilt nodes
good.
but if he just waving an address in the air like he just dont care, but still demands a vote.. bad
and him saying he will sell coins if he doesnt get his way.. is not a threat but a discount day. people will actually taunt him on to sell his coins so they can get cheap coins.

as for the node count
by having more capacity onchain people can transact more onchain. so will want to protect the chain thing they are actually using each day..
however if people only use off chain or sidechains. they will only use the LN node or protect the sidechain where they are transacting. thus offchain and side chain has the psychological risks of diluting the node count more.
EG you protect core/blockstream because its what you use.. you dont protect satoshi-qt0.3 because you dont use it.
as things develop you will protect the thing you will be using daily

What kind of 'work' is needed to change or remove a single line of code concerning the max block size?
You cannot earn any merrits with that. Yes SW is cool, but done brutally complex i.o. to skip the HF (politically?).

Well yeah but segwit wont make the blocks 4 mb, it will just process that amount of data. The extra data will be discarded I think, i am not exactly sure how it works technically.

But if a hardfork to 2mb happens, that will increase the blocksize directly, and the future size of the blockchain, which will inevitable make full nodes run harder.

And segwit also allows running partial nodes, where you process less data and dont need that high bandwitdh.