Your attempt to insinuate that the the parent was compromised is literally straight out of the CBGB public communication subversion handbook!
Seriously, this whole thread perfectly characterises everything that is wrong right now. nullc should know better. so should I, topping this bile fest is probably ill advised, but at least I'm not a 'core dev'.
Real people with real opinions just aren't this level of crazy.
You're hanging out in the mental ward over at bitco.in forums, you've reached a new level of crazy. |
|
|
|
Great, great idea. For my part I would like to beef up the rap sheet against one Gavin Andresen and shine light on the trail of evidence which supports his indictment as Bitcoin traitor and persona non grata. Here is Gavin's history of attacks on Bitcoin using the block size as a proxy and purported motivations: 03/12/2013 The "Accidental" fork Recently Bitcoin came close to unmitigated disaster, in the following way:Gavin diplomatically suggested that miners increase their block size, from the previous magic number of "250k" to something they themselves pick.This approach is flawed: the solution to the problem of having a magic number in the code is not passing the responsibility of choosing it to a larger group. It may work politically, in the sense that where large, vague groups are responsible for a bad move nobody will ever be hung. It does not work practically.
This point does not begin to get sufficient emphasis: stop thinking politically, stick to thinking practically. The political importance, usefulness or competence of a dev is nil. This is not your job, and more importantly this is one of the things you suck at the most. A casual skim through the -dev sessions is ample proof for this, more ridiculous dickwad posturing and knowshitism has never before been seen (outside of the mailing lists of some meanwhile failed open source projects). Snap out of it. Stick to writing code.
Note the foresight of MPOE-PR with regards to the events that came to unfold in the following years. 01/06/2015 The first magic numbers My goal is to prove that it is safe to raise the maximum block size from 1MB to at least 20MB, with the existing Bitcoin Core code (no fancy invertible bloom filters, no hyper-optimized-for-the Bitcoin-elliptic-curve verification code).
...
My desktop machine (a quad-core, 16GB-memory, "Late 2012" iMac) can easily keep up with a 20-MB-per-block blockchain, and could even keep up with a 200-MB-per-block chain if run with bigger -maxsigcachesize and -dbcache settings. http://gavintech.blogspot.ca/2015/01/looking-before-scaling-up-leap.html01/20/2015 I'm confident that there are no technical barriers to scaling up Executive summary: if we increased the maximum block size to 20 megabytes tomorrow, and every single miner decided to start creating 20MB blocks and there was a sudden increase in the number of transactions on the network to fill up those blocks....
... the 0.10.0 version of the reference implementation would run just fine. http://gavintech.blogspot.ca/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.htmlQ3 2015 Why eight? Because it's a Chinese homonym for "prosper" or "wealth" It crops up in the Chinese Bitcoin community all the time. So this choice obviously wasn't based on any kind of scientific analysis. Having Bitcoin protocol constants be decided by rhymes would obviously have been an embarrassment, but nonetheless, we compromised and did it. - Mike Hearn https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=mike_hearn&next=10921219More on the way... |
|
|
|
At least now I can understand why you are so aggressive towards me. It was when people started talking about my work on scalability...how a transaction fee market exists without a block size limit, and later how subchains would permit massive on-chain scaling and improved 0-conf security...that forced you to re-evaluate what you thought you knew to be true. And you lashed out.
You know deep inside that:
The block size limit will soon be raised.
An application of weak blocks, perhaps even the subchain protocol, will be implemented.
Bitcoin will massively scale both on-chain and off-chain.
And this war will come to an end.
See someone, please. You need counseling. |
|
|
|
@gmaxwell
Move Core just to 2MB and you will have killed Classic.
But your team will not do it, even if it was in the proposal of someone directly from Blockstream at the beginning of the debate.
The reason is unknown, but it falls in the conflict of interest hole, that produces many dirty answers.
Anyway, if there will be an hardfork to 2MB, you will still be able to get back the network, by releasing many feature loved by "Network".
Competing team is the best situation.
The reason is simple, they've found a more simple and innovative way to provide for the additional headroom that a 2MB hard fork would give. |
|
|
|
I don't think that in order to prevent a hard fork, we must do what ever is possible. Hard fork is something that might actually give an important push to further inovation and break all the problems that are slowing bitcoin down. Hard forks also serve a very important purpose in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin. Hard forks act as a check against the power of any development team. It is the ability to hard fork that ensures the continued freedom and decentralization of the protocol. Contentious hard forks support themselves only with the tyranny of the majority. http://bitledger.info/why-a-hard-fork-should-be-fought-and-its-not-evil-to-discuss/ |
|
|
|
wow did he really say that? And he obviously was referring to Bitcoin Classic? wow No he didn't, they are just photoshopped, brg444 is a well known liar  You can find it here. What a despicable individual you are HostFat, shameless liar  |
|
|
|
Some billionaire throws Gmax and company a few million bucks to fund open source Bitcoin development, and they want to cripple it why? Liquid is a pegged sidechain.
Are you really naive enough to believe that venture capital wants to simply fund an open source project? I'm quite sure that there is some business plan and a way for Blockstream to become profitable. Blockstream has not been transparent with their business model but we can all take educated guesses. All great open source projects have been funded with private investments at least to some extent. Most VCs in Blockstream have used, AFAIK, their own private trust fund. In other words, they're playing with house money. Moreover they probably own bitcoins and feel Blockstream can provide value to their investment. |
|
|
|
Slowly but surely the true colors of the Tooministas come to light  The shades of socialism are unmistakeable. Their 2MB hardfork nothing but a red-herring to hide their real plans of "making Bitcoin great again" through democratic demagogy.   Evidently, as this very information slowly finds its way through the veneer of bullshit they've managed to deceive various miners and chinese participants with, the chinks in the armour of agitprop is showing. 
Chinese community meeting HaoBtc avalon okcoin bither wallet :heart_eyes:turned to support core because of 2 reason
[4:50]
1 75% roles lease to split
[4:52]
2. One of classic team member chat with him earlier , which gives him impresson of the motives of classic not only want 2m but want to split community
...
I don't think so, they are changing their mind because they are gradually learn the truth
As was expected of fractious ventures, your shit stinks as much as other similarly flavored XTs & scamcoins. Consensus is forming. Classic getting forked off. |
|
|
|
|
Amazing. Classic could'nt even last a week.
It's time for the Gavinistas to hit the door in a ragequitting moment.
#REKT
|
|
|
|
So now that there's rumblings of Blockstream "capitulating" with an empty promise for 2017... are you guise gonna let me sell some above $450 for the 3rd time in 2 months??
Not surprised that cripplecoiners can't discern the difference between Jonathan Toomim and his stoner brother Michael... oh wait... it's just a smear tactic by association... gotcha.
Software coming out at the end of the month... the DDoS'ing should be pretty epic!
Should also be interesting to see what Loaded has to say tomorrow, if he says anything at all.
Choo Choo Gentlemen. To 450 and slightly beyond!
What a douche. Core prevails. Market is going to rally. You're gonna stop posting. |
|
|
|
agree, that's it with classic. I would take anything brg444 says with a pinch of salt as he completely lacks objectivity. I shoot straight. You can dig yourself for the facts, troll. |
|
|
|
My maybe like 1.33-1.5MB is based I dont believe SegWit transactions will be used much in first year, unless ofcourse new wallet clients forces us to use only SegWit transactions...
Oh noes, wallet providers might force us to use cheaper transactions !!!  |
|
|
|
Just to teach you a bit, if SegWit is implemented, the effective total blocksize depends how much people will be using special SegWit transactions instead of the normal ones. I dont expect within a year there will be more SegWit transactions than the normal ones, making the limit maybe like 1.33-1.5 MB at the end of the first year. Unless off course Bitcoin Core forces us to use just SegWig tansactions instead of possibility to choose normal ones, which would not surprise me given how the RBF features cant be turned off in Core 0.12.
And it is crappy workaround because it is much more complicated solution, which leads in my experience to more likely bugs and future increased development time because of the more complex code.
You're talking out of your ass. Return to your masters and have him review your homework. You get a -F |
|
|
|
Why are we still discussing Classic like it's not a failed project already?
Didn't you get the news?
What news? The news that f2pool doesn't care for Classic. That Bitfury was just bluffing and is meeting Core this weekend. Some sort of compromise is being worked out that would lead to a 2MB hard fork in........ Feb/Mar 2017. So sorry, not tonight dear. |
|
|
|
|
Why are we still discussing Classic like it's not a failed project already?
Didn't you get the news?
|
|
|
|
I'd advise trader here to secure their long position.
We have consensus.
When did this royal "we" come to this result? Should I act quickly, or do I have a few days of down before the up comes? Not long ago. I'd advise you act quickly. Called it |
|
|
|
I'd advise trader here to secure their long position.
We have consensus.
When did this royal "we" come to this result? Should I act quickly, or do I have a few days of down before the up comes? Not long ago. I'd advise you act quickly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
