Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin => Bitcoin Discussion => Topic started by: cryptoanarchist on April 04, 2017, 08:27:41 PM



Title: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: cryptoanarchist on April 04, 2017, 08:27:41 PM
I personally don't like the people working on Core, and I don't trust them. I'm not sure I trust Roger Ver, but I KNOW I don't trust Core.

Can someone here explain in an honest, intelligent way why I'm making a bad decision?


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: achow101 on April 04, 2017, 08:58:59 PM
Bitcoin Unlimited has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the code that they are working on and have introduced multiple critical bugs. Their code review process is non-existent.

The BU developers are also extremely toxic. They refuse to work with every other developer in the Bitcoin community. They have refused to use the BIP system which is used by everyone else in the Bitcoin community (not just Core) in order to standardize proposals and make sure that different implementations of the consensus rules still follow the consensus rules. Furthermore, BU's BUIP system is extremely lacking in technical documentation that allows other developers to work on separate implementations of a BUIP.

The very nature of how BU is conducting themselves is that they are making it extremely difficult for multiple implementations of Bitcoin to exist; their documentation for stuff like Emergent Consensus, the specific system that they are using, XThin, etc. is so bad that no pretty much no other developer can actually independently implement any of them. Thus you will be stuck with just whatever the BU developers put out, and they have shown that what they do produce has many issues.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: AgentofCoin on April 04, 2017, 10:14:06 PM
I personally don't like the people working on Core, and I don't trust them. I'm not sure I trust Roger Ver, but I KNOW I don't trust Core.

Can someone here explain in an honest, intelligent way why I'm making a bad decision?

IMO:

Under the current development team, ideas are proposed and the community either accepts them or not.
This type of system ensures that the network is voluntarily and relieves potential liabilities, and only "upgrades" within
Community supported Consensus. Monopolies, centralization, and governmental regulations can not ever enter the
network or the protocol with this type of system. The current layout prevents such intrusion.

As a so called "crypto-anarchist" the Core implementation and it's Censuses standard is somewhat
consistent with such ideals.


Under the BU development team, ideas are forced on the users with hardforks and those who disagree are left behind.
This type of system ensures that the network becomes exclusive with each "upgrade" based on the sole direction of
the leader/decider. This creates responsible parties which opens themselves to personal liabilities (that do not exist now).  
Monopolies, centralization, and governmental regulations will need to be allowed into the protocol to protect this type of
centralized payment system. It will need to conform to AML and KYC on-chain eventually. A centralized payment system
can not survive without governmental assistance.

As a so called "crypto-anarchist" the BU implementation and it's new Censuses standard is contradictory to such ideals.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: DannyHamilton on April 05, 2017, 12:52:02 AM
Bitcoin Unlimited has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the code that they are working on and have introduced multiple critical bugs. Their code review process is non-existent.

The BU developers are also extremely toxic.

As are comments like the one you just made.

They refuse to work with every other developer in the Bitcoin community.

Only the ones that refuse to work with them.

They have refused to use the BIP system which is used by everyone else in the Bitcoin community (not just Core) in order to standardize proposals and make sure that different implementations of the consensus rules still follow the consensus rules.

If a system is broken and/or shuts you out, then using it doesn't make any sense.

Furthermore, BU's BUIP system is extremely lacking in technical documentation that allows other developers to work on separate implementations of a BUIP.

The "Core" community took a while to work out a broken system.  Perhaps, give Unlimited a bit of time to work out one that isn't broken?

The very nature of how BU is conducting themselves is that they are making it extremely difficult for multiple implementations of Bitcoin to exist;

And the very existence of Unlimited is evidence that Core and their BIPs are failing to form consensus and bring a community together.

Remember, there is nothing "official" about Core.  The ONLY thing that makes their software the "reference client" is the fact that a significant majority run it.  If a significant majority run something else, then Core is an alt-client and any fork they trigger is an alt-coin.  That is how Bitcoin is designed to work, and that is the only way that Bitcoin CAN work.  Maintain consensus, or fall apart.  You can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users. Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.

If you actually want Bitcoin to be a success, you'll need to stop trying to rip it apart at the seams.

Governments and central banks don't need to destroy bitcoin.  They can just sit back and watch a bunch of children do it to themselves.

their documentation for stuff like Emergent Consensus, the specific system that they are using, XThin, etc. is so bad that no pretty much no other developer can actually independently implement any of them.

I listened for years while people complained about how little documentation there was for Core.  Know what EVERYONE got told?  "It's open source. If you want documentation, write it."


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: achow101 on April 05, 2017, 01:46:43 AM
Only the ones that refuse to work with them.

If a system is broken and/or shuts you out, then using it doesn't make any sense.
Except no one from Core was refusing to work with them nor have they shut them out.  Many now are refusing to work with BU due to BU's active hostility and toxicity towards them. Would you want to work with someone who shit on you, talked trash about you, and insulted you all day? Because that is what the BU devs are doing to the Core devs yet they (and their supporters) somehow expect the Core devs to voluntarily contribute to their project should they become the reference implementation.

Regarding the BIP process, the BU devs most certainly were not shut out at all. In fact, they were explicitly invited by Luke-Jr (current BIP editor) to submit their BUIPs as BIPs as well who even offered to go and assign a BIP number to every single BUIP (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012529.html) (even though I don't think those BUIPs meet the standard for BIPs, i.e. not enough specifics for implementation in the document) but they explicitly rejected the offer and refused to work (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012538.html) with the process that every single other developer in the Bitcoin ecosystem has been using to standardize every protocol change.

Furthermore, the BU developers are explicitly alienating the Core developers with their childish and rather unprofessional behavior of posting about suspected bugs in Core in blog posts (https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/a-short-tour-of-bitcoin-core-4558744bf18b) rather than responsibly reporting them to Core through the issue tracker. Instead of reporting bugs responsibly when they find them, they wait days, weeks, to report them, and do so using outside channels instead of the bug reporting channel. Conversely, people on Core have pointed out bugs in BU to them through their official bug reporting channel (github issue page) and when proposals with implementations have been posted to the mailing list (Matt Corallo reviewed Tom Zander's reference implementation for FlexTrans (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-October/013241.html)). Greg Maxwell has said that he found several sever vulnerabilities in BU which he reported to them but they never responded nor did they patch the bugs.

The "Core" community took a while to work out a broken system.  Perhaps, give Unlimited a bit of time to work out one that isn't broken?
In what way is the BIP system broken? So far, what BU has come up with seems to be even worse than the BIP system. At the very least the BIP system has defined what it is supposed to do, what can be considered a BIP, and what needs to be included in a BIP (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki) before it will be accepted, given a number, and added to the repo. AFAICT, no such document exists in the BUIP repo (https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BUIP).

And the very existence of Unlimited is evidence that Core and their BIPs are failing to form consensus and bring a community together.
BIPs are not affiliated with Core. Core is not involved in what is accepted as a BIP (they don't have to like it or agree with it for the BIP to be given a number and added to the repo, e.g. FlexTrans, BIP 134 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0134.mediawiki)).

With every single change, there will always be people who do not agree with it. BU happens to be that group of people right now. Yet Core and segwit has been able to gain the support of the a significant number of wallet developers, exchanges, and services (https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/) while BU has not.

Furthermore several hundred individuals, organizations, and companies have indicated that they support Core. (https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/issues/50)

I listened for years while people complained about how little documentation there was for Core.  Know what EVERYONE got told?  "It's open source. If you want documentation, write it."
Documentation for Core has been around for a very long time already. The doxygen docs were added in 2011, for version 0.5.1 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/15ceadf7a564e01c382b2af6a9c26a1962ffed52). For BIPs to be considered for final status and deployment, they must be well documented. They have to have enough specifics about the change so that anyone can independently implement the BIP just by reading the BIP. Hell, the code is, IMO, very well commented and has comments that explain what everything does.

Now, I understand that it wasn't always like this (and granted, there are still some undocumented parts that are basically holdovers from the very early days, and those are not consensus critical), but with so much documentation already, if BU wants to become the reference implementation, they need to be able to match the same code quality and documentation quality of Core. They keep advocating for multiple implementations, but the only way to allow multiple implementations is to provide enough documentation that people can independently implement everything, which, as of now, is not the case with the BUIPs.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Carlton Banks on April 05, 2017, 11:55:09 AM
the very existence of Unlimited is evidence that Core and their BIPs are failing to form consensus and bring a community together.


You don't understand what "evidence" means, Danny Hamilton


All that BU's existence proves is that some programmers out there have the time on their hands to produce it. That's it. What their genuine intentions are is unknowable, but friends of yours (like Peter Rizun and Gavin Andresen) have unequivocally stated that their intention is to prevent a Bitcoin Core blockchain from being able to operate, using more friends at Bitmain to perform the required hashrate attack.

All this seems a little coordinated, and the design of BU is perfect to perform a whole variety of attacks against any blockchain. But, "Free the Market" right?

BU cannot compete, painting yourself as a "concerned regular user" doesn't wash when you're clearly intelligent enough to understand that the BU software and it's cheerleading campaign (of which you are the most subtle part) are designed as a weapon, not as a network. That's aggression, brute force and fraud, all rolled into one. Not free market competition.

Remember, there is nothing "official" about Core.  The ONLY thing that makes their software the "reference client" is the fact that a significant majority run it.  If a significant majority run something else, then Core is an alt-client and any fork they trigger is an alt-coin.  That is how Bitcoin is designed to work, and that is the only way that Bitcoin CAN work.  Maintain consensus, or fall apart.  You can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users. Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.


And from whence did this wedge originate? You're saying that Core devs started and perpetuated the argument, and it's a cheap and ignoble trick.

The party that both began this war, and will not let it go, is yours, and yours alone. You are a disgraceful liar, and a disgrace in general to try to state the opposite as the truth.

You are in essence committing a violent and provocative act, then claiming the other party is the instigator. You have no shame, not worthy of being called human. Only cowards and thieves lie to obtain their worldly goods, and you have proven that about yourself in spades. But by all means, keep digging. You are a real person, and one day you will be sold out, one cannot exist uncovered for long as a liar in the information age.

If you actually want Bitcoin to be a success, you'll need to stop trying to rip it apart at the seams.

If you really believed your own words, shut your lying mouth and stop telling lies to try to commandeer this project away.


Why can BU not compete against Bitcoin freely? Why can BU not launch itself as a separate cryptocurrency? What is this pathological obsession with using a cacophony of falsehoods to wrest Bitcoin away from the Core team?

If your idea is so good, why must you use fraud and force to make it so? You are a liar and a bully, Danny Hamilton


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: jeen5 on April 05, 2017, 01:33:20 PM
The bitcoin blockchain is actually a software update for unlimited. A few years ago, when I started to make a name for bitcoin bitcoin developers Put a restriction on the total data that can be processed in the ecosystem. This restriction, which makes the system very slow when the number of transactions increases, but at the same time security that stop potential attacks that can be loaded from system memory.

Han Wu ji " bitcoin is a major investor, and the system is regarded as the Creator, Roger Ver bitcoin is moving to important names such as unlimited insists that, although prominent in Peter Todd bitcoin encoding, data limit, combined with the removal of both the security problems that both governments and big banks will emerge that expresses sovereignty over blockchain.

i think; they trust the men themselves, both sides may be right. but they have to give a joint decision to continue this system. this system definitely will unite for the maintenance of a softer idea.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: swogerino on April 05, 2017, 01:48:12 PM
Please change the subject of the topic. I thought the fork had already happened when in fact it didn't yet and I was worried. Until the fork is officially done please change the subject of the thread to something else as is misleading.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: DannyHamilton on April 05, 2017, 02:00:41 PM
Please change the subject of the topic. I thought the fork had already happened when in fact it didn't yet and I was worried. Until the fork is officially done please change the subject of the thread to something else as is misleading.

There is nothing misleading about saying he is running a bitcoin unlimited node, if he is actually running a bitcoin unlimited node. He doesn't say anything about a fork at all in his subject.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: cryptoanarchist on April 05, 2017, 07:12:37 PM
Bitcoin Unlimited has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the code that they are working on and have introduced multiple critical bugs. Their code review process is non-existent.

The BU developers are also extremely toxic. They refuse to work with every other developer in the Bitcoin community. They have refused to use the BIP system which is used by everyone else in the Bitcoin community (not just Core) in order to standardize proposals and make sure that different implementations of the consensus rules still follow the consensus rules. Furthermore, BU's BUIP system is extremely lacking in technical documentation that allows other developers to work on separate implementations of a BUIP.

The very nature of how BU is conducting themselves is that they are making it extremely difficult for multiple implementations of Bitcoin to exist; their documentation for stuff like Emergent Consensus, the specific system that they are using, XThin, etc. is so bad that no pretty much no other developer can actually independently implement any of them. Thus you will be stuck with just whatever the BU developers put out, and they have shown that what they do produce has many issues.

Please provide evidence of these statements.

What bugs? All software has bugs. Core has many. A lot of commits are even labeled "bug fixes". I'm running an unlimited node and haven't had any problems. I currently will accept up to 4MB blocks.

The BIP system seems useless. Most(all?) of them have included block size increases and Core just refuses to do it.

On a side note, one thing that really irks me is when people speak on behalf of "the community". I know right away who I'm really hearing - a tool for the establishment. The kind of smart, independent, free-thinking minds that started Bitcoin are wise enough to speak for only themselves.

I agree with you that Core has better documentation for SegWit than BU has. Both are bloated clients, imho, but right now I'm choosing the lesser evil.

It's also a practical matter. Right now, either Bitcoin is going to fork, or the other miners are going to adopt BU, but BU isn't going to back down from an almost 40% hash rate. If the fork happens, Segwit miners are going to have a hell of a time mining blocks AND they'll be limited to 1MB. Fees will go through the roof and the chain will essentially quit working making BTC worthless.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: achow101 on April 05, 2017, 07:48:19 PM
Please provide evidence of these statements.

What bugs? All software has bugs. Core has many. A lot of commits are even labeled "bug fixes". I'm running an unlimited node and haven't had any problems. I currently will accept up to 4MB blocks.
BU has recently had 3 publicized and exploited remote crashing bugs. Here's a thread on reddit discussing the first two (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/). These bugs allowed people to send specially crafted messages over the P2P network to a BU node and cause it to crash thus taking it offline. These bugs are a result of large changes with little or poor code review. Two of the 3 bugs was first introduced in PR 36 (https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/36). As you can see from looking at the PR, there was very little commentary prior to it being merged, no one ACK'ed it, there is no indication that anyone had even reviewed the code. The third bug was added in PR 43 (https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/43), which, much like the previous PR, is a very large change which does not have a lot of review and very few comments about the changes even though the changeset is quite large. There is only one person who reviewed the code, and even in the end, he doesn't give an indication of approving the code before it is merged in. This lack of review makes BU more prone to severe bugs like the aforementioned Remote DoS bugs and potentially even changes to wallet code that can risk your Bitcoin.

The BIP system seems useless. Most(all?) of them have included block size increases and Core just refuses to do it.
There is more to the BIP system than just block size increases and scaling solutions. Proposed block size increases make up a very small fraction of BIPs. Furthermore, BIPs are not used only by Core, but rather nearly every other popular wallet software or service uses the BIPs in order to implement things in a standardized way to make all software compatible with each other. One such example of commonly used BIPs are BIP 32 and BIP 44 which specify the derivation process for Hierarchical Deterministic wallets and that standard is what allows people to import the BIP32 master private and public keys into multiple wallets.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: AgentofCoin on April 05, 2017, 08:12:43 PM
...
Remember, there is nothing "official" about Core.  The ONLY thing that makes their software the "reference client" is the fact that a significant majority run it.  If a significant majority run something else, then Core is an alt-client and any fork they trigger is an alt-coin.  That is how Bitcoin is designed to work, and that is the only way that Bitcoin CAN work.  Maintain consensus, or fall apart.  You can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users. Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.

And from whence did this wedge originate? You're saying that Core devs started and perpetuated the argument, and it's a cheap and ignoble trick.
The party that both began this war, and will not let it go, is yours, and yours alone. You are a disgraceful liar, and a disgrace in general to try to state the opposite as the truth.
You are in essence committing a violent and provocative act, then claiming the other party is the instigator. You have no shame, not worthy of being called human. Only cowards and thieves lie to obtain their worldly goods, and you have proven that about yourself in spades. But by all means, keep digging. You are a real person, and one day you will be sold out, one cannot exist uncovered for long as a liar in the information age.

If you actually want Bitcoin to be a success, you'll need to stop trying to rip it apart at the seams.
If you really believed your own words, shut your lying mouth and stop telling lies to try to commandeer this project away.
Why can BU not compete against Bitcoin freely? Why can BU not launch itself as a separate cryptocurrency? What is this pathological obsession with using a cacophony of falsehoods to wrest Bitcoin away from the Core team?
If your idea is so good, why must you use fraud and force to make it so? You are a liar and a bully, Danny Hamilton

Though I do not agree with Danny's overall argument that Consensus is failing now
because the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides, (since I consider
a stalemate between two separate ideologies as being a part of the Consensus
mechanism) I just want to say I do not agree with the way you are talking to Danny here.

It is alright if we disagree with each other and at times it becomes heated, but I do not
agree with the way in which you talked down to him. IMO Danny is not a common troll/
shill and if he believes what he believes, it is important to listen and try to understand his
viewpoint, whether we agree or not.

If you said this to Jonald_Fyookball, I wouldn't care since that user has really become a
hardcore BU pumper lately and that account is shilling conspiracy, misrepresentations,
and accusing Core of "fill in the blank", but Danny is not Jonald, and does not conduct
himself in such a way, and rarely provides his opinion in this whole debate. So I believe
Danny is venting about some frustration because this issue has gone on longer than some
would have assumed.

Whatever the end result of this whole "blocksize debate", we should not lower ourselves
to attacks of people's character unless it is warranted and IMO, Danny's statements in this
thread do not warrant them. There are some people we should attack and shun and then
there are others we should listen to, but disagree with respectfully. We can distinguish those
two groups by their overall deeds. Jonald has become a shill, Danny is voicing a personal
concern whether we agree or not. There is a difference.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Carlton Banks on April 05, 2017, 08:14:38 PM
Furthermore, BIPs are not used only by Core, but rather nearly every other popular wallet software or service uses the BIPs in order to implement things in a standardized way to make all software compatible with each other. One such example of commonly used BIPs are BIP 32 and BIP 44 which specify the derivation process for Hierarchical Deterministic wallets and that standard is what allows people to import the BIP32 master private and public keys into multiple wallets.

A good example of what you're saying would be the various hardware wallets (e.g.Satoshi Labs' Trezor). Without BIP32 and BIP44, implementing multiple cryptocoins for use with hardware wallets would be a far more laborious task than it is now. Key differences in coin features (such as the PoW algorithm used) can still add to the workload, but BIP32 and BIP 44 still remove huge obstacles to both development and user experience (e.g. 1 wallet seed can be used for many different cryptocoins)


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: cryptoanarchist on April 05, 2017, 08:37:16 PM
BU has recently had 3 publicized and exploited remote crashing bugs. Here's a thread on reddit discussing the first two (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/). These bugs allowed people to send specially crafted messages over the P2P network to a BU node and cause it to crash thus taking it offline. These bugs are a result of large changes with little or poor code review. Two of the 3 bugs was first introduced in PR 36 (https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/36). As you can see from looking at the PR, there was very little commentary prior to it being merged, no one ACK'ed it, there is no indication that anyone had even reviewed the code. The third bug was added in PR 43 (https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/pull/43), which, much like the previous PR, is a very large change which does not have a lot of review and very few comments about the changes even though the changeset is quite large. There is only one person who reviewed the code, and even in the end, he doesn't give an indication of approving the code before it is merged in. This lack of review makes BU more prone to severe bugs like the aforementioned Remote DoS bugs and potentially even changes to wallet code that can risk your Bitcoin.

I read through the PRs and none of it is really earth-shattering. PR36 is hardly a huge or even big code change and its common for bugs to make it though even with thorough code review. I worked for a Fortune 300 where all code had to get 3 approvals and there were still bugs - its just part of software development and not a reason to say the programmers aren't competent.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Carlton Banks on April 05, 2017, 08:57:09 PM
I just want to say I do not agree with the way you are talking to Danny here.

You're missing something.

Danny Hamilton stated

Quote
Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.

If you actually want Bitcoin to be a success, you'll need to stop trying to rip it apart at the seams.


Danny Hamilton is a highly intelligent individual. This is obvious from his extensive technical explanations concerning Bitcoin, cryptography, game theory and the mathematics concerning all three. I read his posts regarding those with interest, he writes and explain those topics very well.


Square this circle. How can someone, otherwise demonstrably so intellectually adept, state and believe such basic and blatant falsehoods?

It's very simple. Danny Hamilton has spent several years on this forum building up social capital, and he's cashing in that social capital on support for the Bitcoin Unlimited campaign.



Or do you think that Danny Hamilton actually believes that Bitcoin Core started and perpetuated the blocksize debate? That's so entirely absurd, that I would question the judgement and/or motivation of anyone who knows Danny Hamilton and believed it.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: achow101 on April 05, 2017, 09:00:04 PM
I read through the PRs and none of it is really earth-shattering. PR36 is hardly a huge or even big code change and its common for bugs to make it though even with thorough code review. I worked for a Fortune 300 where all code had to get 3 approvals and there were still bugs - its just part of software development and not a reason to say the programmers aren't competent.
Were you able to identify the Remote DoS bug there?

The point is that even with changes that aren't "earth-shattering" they lack any code review whatsoever. The BU devs also have demonstrated that they don't understand the code that they are modifying. In the post where they went over supposed issues in Core, they made several claims which were later debunked by Greg (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5dkb6o/a_short_tour_of_bitcoin_core/da5d3x3/) He also said that "AFAICT many of issues were actually caused by changes they made to code they didn't understand."


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: cryptoanarchist on April 05, 2017, 09:16:23 PM
I read through the PRs and none of it is really earth-shattering. PR36 is hardly a huge or even big code change and its common for bugs to make it though even with thorough code review. I worked for a Fortune 300 where all code had to get 3 approvals and there were still bugs - its just part of software development and not a reason to say the programmers aren't competent.
Were you able to identify the Remote DoS bug there?

The point is that even with changes that aren't "earth-shattering" they lack any code review whatsoever. The BU devs also have demonstrated that they don't understand the code that they are modifying. In the post where they went over supposed issues in Core, they made several claims which were later debunked by Greg (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5dkb6o/a_short_tour_of_bitcoin_core/da5d3x3/) He also said that "AFAICT many of issues were actually caused by changes they made to code they didn't understand."

There's also a video showing the bug in core. I think its a bit silly to say they "don't understand the code".


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: achow101 on April 05, 2017, 09:26:07 PM
There's also a video showing the bug in core.
Except no one has been able to replicate it. Greg also showed that he tried to replicate the bug but got the expected error.

I think its a bit silly to say they "don't understand the code".
They certainly don't understand it to the degree that they want everyone to think they understand it.

Here's a reddit thread with links and sources detailing most of the incompetency of the BU devs: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61bkqe/the_astounding_incompetence_negligence_and/


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: DannyHamilton on April 05, 2017, 09:48:09 PM
Though I do not agree with Danny's overall argument that Consensus is failing now
because the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides, (since I consider
a stalemate between two separate ideologies as being a part of the Consensus
mechanism)

I'm not saying that the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides.  I'm saying that there are a lot of confused and uncertain people that are being influenced by trolls on both sides that attack anyone with an opinion and spread fear and doubt to force both sides farther apart.

I just want to say I do not agree with the way you are talking to Danny here.

Please don't feed the trolls.  It only encourages them.

that user has really become a hardcore BU pumper lately and that account is shilling conspiracy, misrepresentations,
and accusing Core of "fill in the blank"

There are half a dozen or so users here at bitcointalk that have become hardcore [pick-a-side] pumper lately and that account is shilling conspiracy, misrepresentations, and accusing [the-other-side] of "fill in the blank".

I've got most of them on ignore.  The less tempted I am to respond to their nonsense, the less I feed their sense of superiority.  I focus on answering questions and responding to civil discussions instead.  Hopefully if enough of us do so, the whole community can learn from each other and dismiss the nonsense.


Danny . . . rarely provides his opinion in this whole debate. So I believe
Danny is venting about some frustration because this issue has gone on longer than some
would have assumed.

I've been in support of both sides at various times. I've been called a "blockstream shill" and I've been called a "big-blocker".  Both franky1 and Carlton Banks like to make up creative insults and direct them at me.  I tend to think of them both as my own little troll puppies following me around and yipping at my heels.

I'm more interested in both learning and teaching as much about the concerns both sides have as possible.  Knowledge helps reduce fear, anger, and hate.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: AgentofCoin on April 05, 2017, 10:58:25 PM
I just want to say I do not agree with the way you are talking to Danny here.
You're missing something.
Danny Hamilton stated

Quote
Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.
If you actually want Bitcoin to be a success, you'll need to stop trying to rip it apart at the seams.

Danny Hamilton is a highly intelligent individual. This is obvious from his extensive technical explanations concerning Bitcoin, cryptography, game theory and the mathematics concerning all three. I read his posts regarding those with interest, he writes and explain those topics very well.
Square this circle. How can someone, otherwise demonstrably so intellectually adept, state and believe such basic and blatant falsehoods?
It's very simple. Danny Hamilton has spent several years on this forum building up social capital, and he's cashing in that social capital on support for the Bitcoin Unlimited campaign.
Or do you think that Danny Hamilton actually believes that Bitcoin Core started and perpetuated the blocksize debate? That's so entirely absurd, that I would question the judgement and/or motivation of anyone who knows Danny Hamilton and believed it.

EDIT: I wrote the following before Danny responded and now when I post, see
that Danny has commented. For the sake of responding to the question to me,
I will post this anyway, even though it is not really necessary.
I think it is important to say, even if I am incorrect in different aspects.



Without actually speaking for him, because in reality I do not really know anything,
and I was just addressing the "forcefulness" in your response to him, but if I had to
address the specific situation at hand, the following is my opinion about Danny, and
may actually windup being my projection, lol.

IMO, Danny is not about to cash out his social capital, but has become frustrated with the
current status quo because he sees Bitcoin as something different than the majority. IMO,
Danny thinks Bitcoin is still a "running experiment" and currently the experiment is stalling
and causing secondary issues (altcoins are rising, community is splitting, etc). The
experiment was designed so that stalling shouldn't normally take effect. If stalling persists,
people need to go back to the drawing board and start again. Though that is unfortunate
and wasted many peoples time and hard work & money, the reality is that, that is our only
choice now. If the system can not come to an answer soon, we need brand new answers.
This is how I personally interpreted Danny. He is not like RawDog coming on and saying,
"Bitcoin is fucked you dumb Core nubs fucked it, raise the blocks to the sky, ye bitches!!1!".
He has just finally become visibly frustrated.

IMO, Danny thinks the Core devs have more power than they are willing to use
and that maybe they should make more efforts to create compromises, instead of doing what
they are currently doing. With Consensus, there should always be an ongoing negotiation over
time. The longer a compromise is not reached the worse the problem becomes irreconcilable
which could lead to two chains. If both sides continue as is, there is good chance there will be
a "big block chain" and a "small block chain", which not only hurts the community, but hurts
the "experiment" overall. Some in the community want a splitting away, since they think it is
alright and acceptable, but that is outside of the Consensus mechanism and is a "cheat".
Danny wants Consensus between the parties, even if it is impossible due to the ideologies.

IMO Danny has seen throughout the community, and even in Core, walls are being created
that may become so high, that even worthy possible compromises will be entirely dismissed.
The wedge that he described really applies to all sides and not just Core, but that Core is the
only entity that has the power to control or stop that. So Danny is frustrated because those
who have some power (whether they want that power or not, or acknowledge that power) are
potentially not using it to heal the community. The issue he is really talking about is division
created on purpose for the intention of forcing these parties away. For Bitcoin to be truly
successful, it should be able to account and include these parties in some meaningful way.

In reality, we all know that the blocksize issue is very complex and include issues such as:
Hardforks vs Softforks, Centralization vs Decentralization, Satoshi's original plan vs Satoshi
wasn't infallible, On-chain Scaling vs Off-chain Scaling, Sig_Ops and things that I have no
true knowledge of as a noob, and so on and so forth. Due to the complexity of this issue,
two camps have formed and may never come back together now. Some individuals who have
been patiently waiting for a resolution are now becoming frustrated. This is how I see Danny.

Everything I have stated is my personal belief and I really have no knowledge as to Danny's
true intentions or beliefs, but I would not jump to attack him as " an enemy" until it is clear
what his true intentions are. Danny's silence, IMO, has more to do with "not intervening with the
experiment" then as an admission that he fully supports BU. But ultimately, my response here
may be my own projection on to Danny, but I still don't think long time respectable members
should be spoken to as such, since that feeds into the division. If the member is a blatant shill/
troll on the other hand, I have no issue and they need to be whacked down.

Edit: Ultimately, I have placed words in Danny's mouth. So, if so desired, you could
substitute "Danny" and "he", with me, since I think what i wrote holds true to my opinion. I
am no expert nor know computer programming and etc, I am just a 2013 Bitcoin noob who
came along and fell in love with its different aspects. I have no power and am subject to
whatever the final outcome will be in this "blocksize debate". The question now is: is
reconciliation still possible or have we proven that two chains will be our reality?


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: cryptoanarchist on April 05, 2017, 11:11:08 PM
 Both franky1 and Carlton Banks like to make up creative insults and direct them at me.

lol...I've had franky1 on ignore since 2012. I think Garzik makes a lot of good points as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNAe5OWIBT8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNAe5OWIBT8)


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Carlton Banks on April 06, 2017, 06:12:49 AM
I'm not saying that the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides.  

You literally did say that, and also that the Core team both began and perpetuated the conflict.

And I have demonstrated you are lying. It's impossible for you or anyone else to claim Core began the conflict and expect to be taken seriously as one who is interested in the truth of the matter.

It's so simple, you decided to tell a lie, and used your reputation to sell the lie. You're a liar and a manipulator.

I've got most of them on ignore.  The less tempted I am to respond to their nonsense, the less I feed their sense of superiority.  I focus on answering questions and responding to civil discussions instead.  Hopefully if enough of us do so, the whole community can learn from each other and dismiss the nonsense.


You're using up that social capital rather quickly, Danny. This haughty aloofness of yours is in fact the manifestation of a genuine superiority complex, another weapon in your rhetoric box.

If what I say is nonsense, dismiss it with words, not the ad hominem labelling you use against me (and for which you provide no evidence), yet hypocritically direct ad hominem insults towards me (and you do so passive aggressively, without making a direct reference, knowing that people will realise who you are not referring to by name)


You cannot dismiss what I'm saying about you, because it's the truth. You cannot explain why I am labelling your behaviour unfairly, because what I am saying about you is the truth.

If I'm lying, distorting or making clever editorial decisions in what I say, be a man and address it directly. Instead, you have no choice but to defend yourself with veiled insults, whereas I am upfront and direct about who and what I am dismissing, and I give soundly argued reasons for doing so.

You provide no reason, you just bandy labels around, like childish playground name calling. I call you out for what you are, loudly and proudly, because your demonstrably insidious rhetoric is a danger to the value of mine and others BTC assets.


I've been in support of both sides at various times. I've been called a "blockstream shill"

That wouldn't be credible even if it ever happened. I doubt anyone would take that seriously, you've suddenly revealed a consistent big-blocks position only just recently. You say nothing in respect of supporting or rejecting the Core position that I've seen.

Both franky1 and Carlton Banks like to make up creative insults and direct them at me.  I tend to think of them both as my own little troll puppies following me around and yipping at my heels.

Interesting that you follow a claim of being a victim of "creative insults" with..... rather a creative insult of your own.


But my claims that you are a liar are plain for all to see. You said that Core both started and perpetuated the big blocks debate, demonstrably and obviously false. That you are a liar is not an insult at all, it is the truth.

I'm more interested in both learning and teaching as much about the concerns both sides have as possible.  Knowledge helps reduce fear, anger, and hate.

If you are so interested in knowledge, why are you telling easily debunked lies?

I will not tolerate you or anyone else suggesting that I am the person behaving in bad faith when I am simply standing up for what is right and for the truth.


You are a malevolent liar, and I will call you out on it each and every time you perpetrate falsehoods, against Core's management or anything else (although I expect your gameplan is to stick to attacking the people at Core and their decisions)


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Iranus on April 06, 2017, 06:56:33 AM
I'm not saying that the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides.  

You literally did say that, and also that the Core team both began and perpetuated the conflict.
Actually, he said that they had failed, not that they were not trying (and he was objectively correct, as a consensus has not been reached).  His points about division were clearly addressed to you and to others who are divisive and close-minded (for example, arguing with a fascist does not make you one).

Quote
It's so simple, you decided to tell a lie, and used your reputation to sell the lie. You're a liar and a manipulator.
Objective truth.  And this seems like a creative insult to me.  Your repeated use of the term "liar" and attempts to discredit Danny are unhelpful (and I hope this is addressing your "clever editorial decisions" "like a man").


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: X7 on April 06, 2017, 08:00:28 AM
Please change the subject of the topic. I thought the fork had already happened when in fact it didn't yet and I was worried. Until the fork is officially done please change the subject of the thread to something else as is misleading.

There is nothing misleading about saying he is running a bitcoin unlimited node, if he is actually running a bitcoin unlimited node. He doesn't say anything about a fork at all in his subject.

Perhaps we should check the unlimited intergalactic accords and ask the future president if he would be comfortable with our projected plans, you don't seem stupid. So clearly you have an insidious ulterior motive.



Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Carlton Banks on April 06, 2017, 08:38:23 AM
I'm not saying that the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides.  

You literally did say that, and also that the Core team both began and perpetuated the conflict.
Actually, he said that they had failed, not that they were not trying (and he was objectively correct, as a consensus has not been reached).  His points about division were clearly addressed to you and to others who are divisive and close-minded (for example, arguing with a fascist does not make you one).

You're wrong.

You can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users. Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.

If you actually want Bitcoin to be a success, you'll need to stop trying to rip it apart at the seams


Above, Danny states that Core forced a wedge, created an us & them mentality, that they incited FUD and that Core needs to stop trying to tear Bitcoin apart.

All wrong.


The perpetrators of all of Danny's unfounded accusations was the succession of pressure created first by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn (using XT and "Classic"), then by Peter Rizun and his Unlimited merry men. Danny Hamilton is simply the latest in a long line of people lying about real world events and the systemic effects of blocksize increases on the system, and as I say, he's an exceptionally insidious example of that strategy, as he's been uninvolved up to now, building trust in his readers. Now, Danny Hamilton is using the trust he's built up to sway opinions toward the big blocks position, and it's a very crafty strategy.

I have demonstrated everything I'm saying as a fact, with reasoning. Where are your facts? You're saying little more than "Danny is right". Why is Danny right? Can you tell us without avoiding the falsehoods Danny has presented (as is the typical tactic for lie-driven big blocks rhetoric)

Why does the big blocks position always require lies to convince Bitcoiners? Why must the lies (and the liars telling them) become more sophisticated and subtle, as they lose battle after battle?



Objective truth.  And this seems like a creative insult to me.  Your repeated use of the term "liar" and attempts to discredit Danny are unhelpful (and I hope this is addressing your "clever editorial decisions" "like a man".

Nope. Unbacked assertions. I have demonstrated that Danny is obscuring the truth and replacing it with carefully constructed lies. What have you proven?


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: cryptoanarchist on April 06, 2017, 01:39:40 PM
I'm not saying that the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides.  

You literally did say that, and also that the Core team both began and perpetuated the conflict.
Actually, he said that they had failed, not that they were not trying (and he was objectively correct, as a consensus has not been reached).  His points about division were clearly addressed to you and to others who are divisive and close-minded (for example, arguing with a fascist does not make you one).

Quote
It's so simple, you decided to tell a lie, and used your reputation to sell the lie. You're a liar and a manipulator.
Objective truth.  And this seems like a creative insult to me.  Your repeated use of the term "liar" and attempts to discredit Danny are unhelpful (and I hope this is addressing your "clever editorial decisions" "like a man".

Iranus, Carlton's definitely ignore-worthy.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Carlton Banks on April 06, 2017, 01:59:51 PM
For what reason?

Prove me wrong. Demonstrate I'm wrong or being deceptive. You can't, and so you must try to use repetitive rhetoric to censor me instead.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: DannyHamilton on April 06, 2017, 03:55:15 PM
You can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users. Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.

If you actually want Bitcoin to be a success, you'll need to stop trying to rip it apart at the seams


Above, Danny states that Core forced a wedge, created an us & them mentality, that they incited FUD and that Core needs to stop trying to tear Bitcoin apart.

Work on your reading comprehension.

You'll notice that in the part of that paragraph you conveniently left out I either refer to Core by name or use "they" or "their", not "your", when referring to Core. I'm not telling Core that they aren't "official", they already know that.  I'm not telling Core that they are the reference client ONLY because a significant majority run it, they already know that. I'm talking "to the reader about Core", not "to Core about Core":
Remember, there is nothing "official" about Core.  The ONLY thing that makes their software the "reference client" is the fact that a significant majority run it.  If a significant majority run something else, then Core is an alt-client and any fork they trigger is an alt-coin.  That is how Bitcoin is designed to work, and that is the only way that Bitcoin CAN work.  Maintain consensus, or fall apart.  You can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users. Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.

I switch to "you", and "your" when explaining to the reader (Among others that's you Carlton, in case you didn't notice) that if the reader attacks anyone the reader doesn't agree with then the reader is part of the problem.  The reader is part of the consensus that needs to be reached.  That the reader should understand that both sides have valid concerns. The reader should understand that the reader "can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users". The reader should understand that "Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off the reader's nose to spite the reader's face."

I even include 2 transition sentences to modify the tone and make it clear that this is about Bitcoin, and not about Core or Unlimited.

Pay a bit more attention to what you read, and perhaps you could have avoided filling this thread with nonsense:

You are a disgraceful liar,
to try to state the opposite as the truth.
Only cowards and thieves lie
one cannot exist uncovered for long as a liar in the information age.
shut your lying mouth
stop telling lies
a cacophony of falsehoods
you use fraud
You are a liar
such basic and blatant falsehoods?
you are lying.
you decided to tell a lie,
and used your reputation to sell the lie.
You're a liar
you are a liar
That you are a liar is not an insult at all
why are you telling easily debunked lies?
You are a malevolent liar,
you perpetrate falsehoods,

Core developers aren't the problem.  Unlimited developers aren't the problem. Developers just write code. This isn't a technical problem.

The problem is one of consensus forming, and the vilifying of anyone that wants something different than one's self is a big part of that problem.  It's gotten so bad, that some people will even attack those that want the same as themselves if any appearance of empathy, sympathy, or understanding is given to the "other side" at all.  That's not a way to bring people together, but it's a great way to drive them apart.  I've even wondered at times if franky1, Carlton Banks, jonald_fyookball, RawDog, and achow101 are all just paid (government? fed reserve? altcoin?) shills tasked with keeping the community from coming together on anything under any circumstances.  If they aren't, then they are certainly doing a good job of helping out those entities for free.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Carlton Banks on April 06, 2017, 04:20:34 PM
Really, Danny? Semantic sleight of hand, that's all you've got in your defence? My ostensible "trolling" requires you to come down from your ivory tower, huh?


But then again, I'd expect you to start trying to twist the meaning of your own sentences to prosecute your position. And oh how much rhetoric (the colours are very pretty) you need to do it.


If it's a consensus system, as you constantly re-iterate, how can addressing one user make any difference? Because if we are to accept your version of events, you are implicitly targeting the small number of Bitcointalk users that are advocating the truth with your hypocritical and cowardly ad hominem attack, aren't you Danny Hamilton?




Edit:

And I'll tell you something else Danny Hamilton.



If we assume that your re-interpretation of context in the English language is correct, then the substance of what you said is still wrong, i.e. you're still a shameless liar


How can you possibly declare that the opposition to blocksize-pushing began the argument? Or that blocksize opponents maintained the argument?


"Big-Blocks" Andresen began the debate, pushed it, and every day of every week of every year since, a horde of big block promoters have been brigading this forum and others like it, with constant distortions of the facts and outright lies. We're the reaction to the antagonists, we are not the antagonists, as you falsely (and knowingly) state.


And you're no different, are you Danny Hamilton? You distorted the facts, claiming Core started and maintained the blocksize (read: putsch for control) war, and then you distorted your own lie, attempting to alter the addressee of your original lie, as if that somehow made what you said about the culpability for the instigation and continuation of the debate magically truthful?


It's clever little lie after clever little lie with you, isn't it Danny Hamilton?


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Iranus on April 07, 2017, 12:25:31 PM
Just a couple of posts ago, Carlton, you said:
Quote
If I'm lying, distorting or making clever editorial decisions in what I say, be a man and address it directly.
Danny clearly addressed it directly by suggesting that you were distorting his wording - suggesting that he was talking about Core when it was addressed at divisive users.

However, you cannot respond to that directly, instead you insult the argument ("semantic sleight of hand") which responds to your attempts to twist the grammar used in his sentence.  You also refer to the colouring, which is used as a sign of frustration at the lack of thought in your post (note, do not call this an ad hominem, I'm insulting your post not you) and also to make it as clear as possible for the reader to comprehend.

If it's a consensus system, as you constantly re-iterate, how can addressing one user make any difference? Because if we are to accept your version of events, you are implicitly targeting the small number of Bitcointalk users that are advocating the truth with your hypocritical and cowardly ad hominem attack, aren't you Danny Hamilton?
A consensus system is based on individuals.  It requires a large majority of users to support a specific version of the network - a large majority of individuals, that is.  You are an individual.  Arguments are being presented to you and other individuals which are believed to frequently harm the debate for other individuals.

Please give an example of an ad hominem used.  I only see attacks on posting and content, not on individuals - the closest to an ad hominem is your "sense of superiority" which in my view you are displaying from your belief that your opinion is "the truth", whereas as Danny Hamilton showed in his previous post, you called him a "liar" and "manipulative" (attacking an individual, regardless of whether or not it's true or you believe it's true) over 10 times.
Quote
How can you possibly declare that the opposition to blocksize-pushing began the argument? Or that blocksize opponents maintained the argument?
As with everything that requires a new consensus, the previous one was viewed as insufficient by a significant enough amount of people to result in open argument favouring a new one (which Danny Hamilton did not take part in).  Therefore regardless of whether or not they were right, which I actually generally believe that they were, the beginning of the argument was their inaction.  Danny Hamilton, notably, does not say the argument you suggest he did at any point even though I do.





Edit: You said the following earlier.

Quote
Demonstrate I'm wrong or being deceptive. You can't, and so you must try to use repetitive rhetoric to censor me instead.
censorship
ˈsɛnsəʃɪp/
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

To put it differently, censorship is preventing public information from being viewed by others.  On the contrary, no one has done that.  Danny Hamilton suggested putting you on ignore - which I might do if you direct any ad hominems in your reply (which I have carefully avoided doing to you) but this could not prevent it reaching a wider audience.  This hyperbole does not help for reaching a consensus - it helps for spreading fear, and is divisive in debates.

I know very little about technical aspects of either side, but I know that when a post is centered around hyperbole I can display my understanding of context and interpretation in the English language instead.




Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Carlton Banks on April 07, 2017, 01:32:31 PM
Where do you actually refute the charge that Danny Hamilton was lying and manipulating? Nowhere


All your wall of text serves to illustrate is that you're talking alot and saying nothing.


I proved Danny Hamilton is a liar. It's that simple, and it's not attacking his character, it's attacking his specific behaviour, behaviour which is pertinent to the issues at hand. Not ad hominem, in other words. And it's proof positive that he knowingly lied and manipulated the discourse.
 


Iranus:

Do you accept Danny Hamilton's clarification that Core users and/or supporters began the blocksize debate, and that Core users and/or supporters perpetuated it? That's where Danny is lying, to which he could only add further manipulation in an attempt to stem the damage to his reputation.


Answer the question without diversion, or there is nothing left to talk about (you avoid it entirely in your above reply, despite that being the central point I was making)


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Iranus on April 07, 2017, 02:01:28 PM
Where do you actually refute the charge that Danny Hamilton was lying and manipulating? Nowhere
I refuted it in the post before the one above, by analysing his language - his language was arguing that Core had failed to create consensus, which is true.  There isn't consensus.  You grudgingly admitted that that was the intended meaning by arguing against it in your edit.

Quote
All your wall of text serves to illustrate is that you're talking alot and saying nothing.
Or maybe you just didn't read it, as I clearly said "Please give me an example of an ad hominem used", about Danny Hamilton.  You didn't respond to this, showing that you either didn't read it or didn't care.

Quote
I proved Danny Hamilton is a liar. It's that simple, and it's not attacking his character, it's attacking his specific behaviour, behaviour which is pertinent to the issues at hand. Not ad hominem, in other words. And it's proof positive that he knowingly lied and manipulated the discourse.
Unless you think liar isn't a negative trait, it's definitely attacking his character.  Your word that he's a liar, repeated over and over again now about 15 times, does not make it so and you constantly claim to have proved it with still no proof that I cannot at least argue against (if evidence is clearly arguable, it isn't evidence, it's an argument).
 


In case you didn't read the rest of my post, the Big Question:
Quote
Iranus:

Do you accept Danny Hamilton's clarification that Core users and/or supporters began the blocksize debate, and that Core users and/or supporters perpetuated it? That's where Danny is lying, to which he could only add further manipulation in an attempt to stem the damage to his reputation.
I answered that question in my above post:
Quote
As with everything that requires a new consensus, the previous one was viewed as insufficient by a significant enough amount of people to result in open argument favouring a new one (which Danny Hamilton did not take part in).  Therefore regardless of whether or not they were right, which I actually generally believe that they were, the beginning of the argument was their inaction.
If you had bothered to read it, you would have seen that.  However it is impossible to answer the question without diversion as the question itself is biased, assuming an implied meaning of Danny Hamilton's post which you had not explained beforehand despite your supposed "proof".


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Carlton Banks on April 07, 2017, 02:35:51 PM
You refuse to answer the pertinent question, and instead continue to derail with over-complicated and diversionary walls-of-text full of unproven assertions. Done here, hope you're getting paid by the line


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: DooMAD on April 07, 2017, 02:36:57 PM
I'm not saying that the Core team is not attempting to reconcile the two sides.  

You literally did say that, and also that the Core team both began and perpetuated the conflict.
Actually, he said that they had failed, not that they were not trying (and he was objectively correct, as a consensus has not been reached).  His points about division were clearly addressed to you and to others who are divisive and close-minded (for example, arguing with a fascist does not make you one).

You're wrong.

You can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users. Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.

If you actually want Bitcoin to be a success, you'll need to stop trying to rip it apart at the seams


Above, Danny states that Core forced a wedge, created an us & them mentality, that they incited FUD and that Core needs to stop trying to tear Bitcoin apart.

All wrong.


The perpetrators of all of Danny's unfounded accusations was the succession of pressure created first by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn (using XT and "Classic"), then by Peter Rizun and his Unlimited merry men. Danny Hamilton is simply the latest in a long line of people lying about real world events and the systemic effects of blocksize increases on the system, and as I say, he's an exceptionally insidious example of that strategy, as he's been uninvolved up to now, building trust in his readers. Now, Danny Hamilton is using the trust he's built up to sway opinions toward the big blocks position, and it's a very crafty strategy.

I have demonstrated everything I'm saying as a fact, with reasoning. Where are your facts? You're saying little more than "Danny is right". Why is Danny right? Can you tell us without avoiding the falsehoods Danny has presented (as is the typical tactic for lie-driven big blocks rhetoric)

Why does the big blocks position always require lies to convince Bitcoiners? Why must the lies (and the liars telling them) become more sophisticated and subtle, as they lose battle after battle?
 
OMFG.  Seriously.

Look, it takes two to tango.  It's called an argument because both sides can't agree.  Neither side created the wedge, it just happened that way because one wants to emphasise onchain scaling and one wants to emphasise offchain scaling.  No one is lying and it's not some grand fucking conspiracy, so stop blowing it out of all proportion.  People are just playing the blame game over who supposedly "started it", like squabbling children do.  

It is a perfectly fair assessment to say that things in the development team degraded to the point where the decision was made by some to not work together and some people left to work on their own implementation.  The wider community immediately started to pick a side based on their own opinions and personal preferences and certain parties began to attack/dismiss/ridicule the side they disagreed with, reinforcing the wedge.

Now either calm the shit down and quit with the character assassinations, or I'll have to assume you are dramatising this intentionally, deliberately stirring shit up in an attempt to discredit people you still seem to perceive as insidious subversives, when in fact they're probably just ordinary people who see things differently to you.  


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: mindrust on April 07, 2017, 02:40:27 PM
I personally don't like the people working on Core, and I don't trust them. I'm not sure I trust Roger Ver, but I KNOW I don't trust Core.

Can someone here explain in an honest, intelligent way why I'm making a bad decision?

So you don't trust the people who created the original bitcoin? If you don't trust them why do you even care about bitcoin? Just dump your position and buy your favorite alternative scam coin. Is it really worth to fight over BU/Core thing?

And, You can't say i don't trust Ver but I run BU node. You are lying.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Carlton Banks on April 07, 2017, 02:56:40 PM
Neither side created the wedge

I never initiated that claim. For what reason are you directing your indignation at me?

This thread happened in a sequence, and Danny Hamilton started the very blame game you're implying is my responsibility. Yet he escapes your indignation, how exactly?


it just happened that way because one wants to emphasise onchain scaling and one wants to emphasise offchain scaling.  No one is lying and it's not some grand fucking conspiracy, so stop blowing it out of all proportion.  People are just playing the blame game over who supposedly "started it", like squabbling children do.


Again, you're telling me this for what reason, exactly? I responded to antagonism, it's plain to see for any who reads the thread


The wider community immediately started to pick a side based on their own opinions and personal preferences and certain parties began to attack/dismiss/ridicule the side they disagreed with, reinforcing the wedge.

Now either calm the shit down and quit with the character assassinations, or I'll have to assume you are dramatising this intentionally, deliberately stirring shit up in an attempt to discredit people you still seem to perceive as insidious subversives, when in fact they're probably just ordinary people who see things differently to you.  

The wider community is responding to some really crafty trolling, of which you are no small part, DooMAD. No-one invited the trolling, you jackals turned up of your own accord, and hilariously perpetrate malignant and deceptive acts, then accuse those that defend themselves of that which only you are all guilty. I will defend myself and my property from liars and manipulators, such as you and Danny Hamilton, at all times.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: DooMAD on April 07, 2017, 03:12:16 PM
Neither side created the wedge

I never initiated that claim. For what reason are you directing your indignation at me?

This thread happened in a sequence, and Danny Hamilton started the very blame game you're implying is my responsibility. Yet he escapes your indignation, how exactly?


it just happened that way because one wants to emphasise onchain scaling and one wants to emphasise offchain scaling.  No one is lying and it's not some grand fucking conspiracy, so stop blowing it out of all proportion.  People are just playing the blame game over who supposedly "started it", like squabbling children do.


Again, you're telling me this for what reason, exactly? I responded to antagonism, it's plain to see for any who reads the thread


The wider community immediately started to pick a side based on their own opinions and personal preferences and certain parties began to attack/dismiss/ridicule the side they disagreed with, reinforcing the wedge.

Now either calm the shit down and quit with the character assassinations, or I'll have to assume you are dramatising this intentionally, deliberately stirring shit up in an attempt to discredit people you still seem to perceive as insidious subversives, when in fact they're probably just ordinary people who see things differently to you.  

The wider community is responding to some really crafty trolling, of which you are no small part, DooMAD. No-one invited the trolling, you jackals turned up of your own accord, and hilariously perpetrate malignant and deceptive acts, then accuse those that defend themselves of that which only you are all guilty. I will defend myself and my property from liars and manipulators, such as you and Danny Hamilton, at all times.

You somehow perceived an insult in DannyHamilton's post that isn't there.  You're defending yourself from the shadows you're jumping at, like usual.  DannyHamilton's post is stating that other clients, in this instance Unlimited, exist because there is a market Core's product doesn't satiate.  The post then goes on to say:

Remember, there is nothing "official" about Core.  The ONLY thing that makes their software the "reference client" is the fact that a significant majority run it.  If a significant majority run something else, then Core is an alt-client and any fork they trigger is an alt-coin.  That is how Bitcoin is designed to work, and that is the only way that Bitcoin CAN work.  Maintain consensus, or fall apart.  You can't maintain consensus by alienating half the miners and a huge population of users. Forcing a wedge between people with "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling is cutting off your nose to spite your face.  In a consensus system it is pretty much the best way to destroy the entire system.

If you actually want Bitcoin to be a success, you'll need to stop trying to rip it apart at the seams.

Governments and central banks don't need to destroy bitcoin.  They can just sit back and watch a bunch of children do it to themselves.

which you managed to misinterpret as an implied insult that the Core team themselves perpetuated a wedge, which wasn't the claim at all.  The post is clearly stating that Bitcoin won't work without consensus and the wedge you are helping to reinforce right now with your usual mindless attack dog routine is not helping with that.  I see nothing wrong with DannyHamilton's post and everything wrong with your skewed and twisted regurgitation of it.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Carlton Banks on April 07, 2017, 03:35:56 PM
Danny's alternative explanation is that those defending Core's current position are the instigators and perpetuators of the wedge.

Do you agree with that assessment DooMAD? Answer directly or not all


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: DooMAD on April 07, 2017, 04:11:59 PM
Danny's alternative explanation is that those defending Core's current position are the instigators and perpetuators of the wedge.

Do you agree with that assessment DooMAD? Answer directly or not all

Actually, the phrase used was (although bolded emphasis mine):

trolls on both sides that attack anyone with an opinion and spread fear and doubt to force both sides farther apart.

So no, I categorically do not agree with your fragile/delicate/paranoid victim mentality or your frankly bizarre and delusional assessment of how events in this thread unfolded.  Is that direct enough for you? 


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: spartacusrex on April 07, 2017, 07:06:34 PM
This thread is making me chuckle..

As for the OP.

Is there anything anyone could say to make you switch back to Core ?

( The arguments for both sides have been made ..err.. like a quadrillion times..  and if after all that you still decided to run a BU node, I'm not sure there's anyway 'someone can explain in an honest, intelligent way why you're making a bad decision'.. So I guess my answer to your question, would be.. No. )



Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: cryptoanarchist on April 07, 2017, 07:45:07 PM
This thread is making me chuckle..

As for the OP.

Is there anything anyone could say to make you switch back to Core ?

( The arguments for both sides have been made ..err.. like a quadrillion times..  and if after all that you still decided to run a BU node, I'm not sure there's anyway 'someone can explain in an honest, intelligent way why you're making a bad decision'.. So I guess my answer to your question, would be.. No. )



Y'know, I've never heard a technical argument in favor of Core. It's all just attack and smear campaign that's typical of the same trolls who have been on here for years.

I'm actually really enjoying how many people in this thread are dismantling Carlton's usual bullshit, it's very refreshing.

Of course they're paid shills, Danny. Sure, people troll for free, but 5+ years of consistent trolling has to be bought.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: ebliever on April 07, 2017, 07:56:34 PM
Just about everything about BU is turning out to be fake. Maybe you are running a real node... but that would make you a minority I guess.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/641kk2/found_150_fake_bu_nodes_ua_free_the_markets_free/


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: cryptoanarchist on April 07, 2017, 08:14:53 PM
Just about everything about BU is turning out to be fake. Maybe you are running a real node... but that would make you a minority I guess.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/641kk2/found_150_fake_bu_nodes_ua_free_the_markets_free/


Not really a reliable source anymore. Has anyone not been censored there?


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Killerpotleaf on April 07, 2017, 08:18:53 PM
Just about everything about BU is turning out to be fake. Maybe you are running a real node... but that would make you a minority I guess.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/641kk2/found_150_fake_bu_nodes_ua_free_the_markets_free/


seems btcpop.co is very enthusiastic about BU.


@OP you might want to consider running classic if all you want to do is signal you don't approve.

classic and BU are compatible, i'm considering changing my node from BU to classic, just because there seems to be plenty of BU nodes, and i want to promote diversity and decentralization of dev.

IMO if dev is a winners take all type thing " BU WINS YAYE or CORE WINS YAYE" we all lose...

when we start saying things like " Core's Segwit has got adopted Yaye, and BU's EC is just about to activate", then we made it.

unfortunately this means a relatively strong degree of mutual respect and teamwork throughout the bitcoin dev community as a whole, which simply isn't the case for some. BUT its NOT as bad as you might think, there is at least one core contributor i know of that come on our forum and engages with BU


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: cryptoanarchist on April 07, 2017, 08:21:31 PM
Quote
@OP you might want to consider running classic if all you want to do is signal you don't approve.

I was thinking of running at least one each.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: thejaytiesto on April 07, 2017, 09:44:14 PM
So you are trusting your wealth into a software that crashes because it's coded by idiots and its based upon a design that needs more than 21 million coins once all coins are mined or else the so called emergent consensus implodes.
Anyone that is running a BU node is either getting paid or is a fucking idiot.
UASF segwit and lets get this shit done already.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: chek2fire on April 07, 2017, 09:55:42 PM
I personally don't like the people working on Core, and I don't trust them. I'm not sure I trust Roger Ver, but I KNOW I don't trust Core.

Can someone here explain in an honest, intelligent way why I'm making a bad decision?

you are a crypto or better an anarchist and you run a code of BU?
lol
 ;D
who you think will buy this? :D


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: cryptoanarchist on April 07, 2017, 10:48:11 PM
So you are trusting your wealth into a software that crashes because it's coded by idiots and its based upon a design that needs more than 21 million coins once all coins are mined or else the so called emergent consensus implodes.
Anyone that is running a BU node is either getting paid or is a fucking idiot.
UASF segwit and lets get this shit done already.

Your response is pretty typical of core's arguments, and the main reason for me switching. SegWit is dead.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: chek2fire on April 07, 2017, 10:50:27 PM
So you are trusting your wealth into a software that crashes because it's coded by idiots and its based upon a design that needs more than 21 million coins once all coins are mined or else the so called emergent consensus implodes.
Anyone that is running a BU node is either getting paid or is a fucking idiot.
UASF segwit and lets get this shit done already.

Your response is pretty typical of core's arguments, and the main reason for me switching. SegWit is dead.

yeah whatever... if you are an anarchist then i am the pope francis


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Iranus on April 07, 2017, 11:35:44 PM
You refuse to answer the pertinent question, and instead continue to derail with over-complicated and diversionary walls-of-text full of unproven assertions. Done here, hope you're getting paid by the line
I answered the Big Question a while ago, and just made it clearer.  Please read the new edit, since you haven't read any of my other posts, or maybe I'll consider putting you on ignore.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: kiklo on April 08, 2017, 01:06:33 AM
I personally don't like the people working on Core, and I don't trust them. I'm not sure I trust Roger Ver, but I KNOW I don't trust Core.

Can someone here explain in an honest, intelligent way why I'm making a bad decision?

Simply put, BTC Core has been lying for months now so they don't actually fix BTC Transaction issues instead pushing their Offchain Banking Cartel Controlled Alternative.

Things they could have done to fix the transaction issues

1. Easiest: Increase Block size to 1 or 2mb , nothing earth shattering and the transactions / fees issue would have solved

2. next easiest : Just move to a faster block speed, (requires changing the reward structure)
The Fact that core lied and said this was impossible , is amazing to consider, because a faster block speed is exactly why LTC has 4X the transaction capacity of BTC.
BTC core could have moved to a 5 minute block speed and BTC transaction capacity would have 2X overnight.

Core keeps complaining BTC can't scale to match visa,
At the moment BTC can't Match LTC, which is a much easier fix just move to a 2 minute blockspeed.
But 4X the current transaction capacity would easily hold BTC onchain needs for 3 or 4 years maybe 10 years.

In the back of your mind, you know core is lying which is why you don't trust them.

G.Maxwell
List of his Lies so far.
1. BTC can not move to a faster block speed     : LIE
2: BTC can't increase Blocksize without segwit  : LIE
3: BTU is unsafe                                           : LIE
4: PoS: Nothing at Stake                                : LIE
5: Energy Efficiently is an attack vector            : LIE


The shocking thing , is why does anyone believe anything these guys say,
But when you find out from a LN Dev that Core keeps a Troll Army to Lie for them in the forums,
it kind of explains it, their trolls just lie to make it seem like anyone trusts core.

Right CB! ;)


 8)


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Sadlife on April 08, 2017, 01:40:31 AM
BU developers has a lack of an understanding with the code they've made themselves this so called of "upgrade" for mining block is a hardware chip to actually exploit blocks. This exploit enables them to mine roughly 20% faster than other competitors.
BU is not planning for a decentralized network but a centralized blockchain that will only benefit themselves, besides from a buggy code they're using some cheap tricks.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: Danimore on April 08, 2017, 01:50:04 AM
Bitcoin Unlimited has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the code that they are working on and have introduced multiple critical bugs. Their code review process is non-existent.

The BU developers are also extremely toxic. They refuse to work with every other developer in the Bitcoin community. They have refused to use the BIP system which is used by everyone else in the Bitcoin community (not just Core) in order to standardize proposals and make sure that different implementations of the consensus rules still follow the consensus rules. Furthermore, BU's BUIP system is extremely lacking in technical documentation that allows other developers to work on separate implementations of a BUIP.

The very nature of how BU is conducting themselves is that they are making it extremely difficult for multiple implementations of Bitcoin to exist; their documentation for stuff like Emergent Consensus, the specific system that they are using, XThin, etc. is so bad that no pretty much no other developer can actually independently implement any of them. Thus you will be stuck with just whatever the BU developers put out, and they have shown that what they do produce has many issues.

you have a thought the same as mine. BTU is only a different coin as like as zec and zcl.  Bitcoin is still number one until now. I only trust in bitcoin (BTC) not bitcoin unlimited (BTU). I think They use this fork to decrease value of bitcoin (BTC)  and I still keep and buy more bitcoins if possible.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: cryptoanarchist on April 08, 2017, 03:08:26 AM
Quote
The shocking thing , is why does anyone believe anything these guys say,
But when you find out from a LN Dev that Core keeps a Troll Army to Lie for them in the forums,
it kind of explains it, their trolls just lie to make it seem like anyone trusts core.

This. Paid trolls are part of life nowadays. You can't judge the general attitudes by looking in forums and comments sections because big money interests whether they're Blockstream, or Big Pharma, or the CIA are manipulating them with multiple sock puppet accounts.


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: HabBear on April 08, 2017, 05:34:33 AM
Under the current development team, ideas are proposed and the community either accepts them or not.

What other options are there?

What is it about the Bitcoin Unlimited people that keep them from want to worth with the Bitcoin Cor devs, rather than against them?


Title: Re: I just switched to running a Bitcoin Unlimited node
Post by: kiklo on April 08, 2017, 06:03:45 AM
Under the current development team, ideas are proposed and the community either accepts them or not.

What other options are there?

What is it about the Bitcoin Unlimited people that keep them from want to worth with the Bitcoin Cor devs, rather than against them?


You got it backwards the Core Team is the one refusing to do anything to fix the transactions issue except push for segwit/LN so they can move all of the transactions OFFCHAIN.

Increase the Blocksize to 2mb or move the blockspeed to 5 minutes instead of 10 , and you just Doubled BTC Transaction Capacity.
(Or do Both and increase the Transaction Capacity by 4X.)

It ain't rocket science.   :P
Either use a bigger bucket or move twice as fast when you carry it.  ;)


 8)