Bitcoin Forum
June 22, 2024, 01:15:02 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
101  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 27, 2017, 12:54:56 AM
Nothing can justify keeping block size limit at 1M.

You can't do a damn thing about it.

The whales are superior. You don't get a vote.

You can write until you are blue in the face and it won't matter. The economics are the economics. You are wasting your time typing.

No personal offense. I am not partial to either side. I am just telling you the facts.

By that logic, you're going to die anyway, so why do you continue to live, today?
102  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 27, 2017, 12:48:28 AM
Actually there IS something that can justify NOT doing this.  By changing the transaction capacity in this way you change bitcoin's value proposition and you destroy its digital gold properties (ie an inflation hedge). This would tank the system.  And also by doing so you open up these qualities and parameters to perpetual political debate which everyone agrees would be terrible for the long term health of the system.

More importantly though, you need a founded scientific argument to propose the system in order to change it, and since there isn't one, there is no hope of you getting your way.  The entire security of the system is held together by science and guarded by (computer) scientists.

If you think changing the block size limit from 1MB to 2MB will 'tank the system', you simply don't understand the Bitcoin design at all.

Satoshi designed Bitcoin with no block size limit, he later added a temporary 1MB limit to prevent spam, it was set to 1MB because it was 2010 and the average block size was less than 1k, he clearly stated this 1M limit was temporary and should be removed in the future.

In October 2010, two months before Satoshi vanished he talked about increasing the block size limit, he actually talked about it on this forum:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Satoshi believed block size should increase after block number 115,000.
We are now 7 years later at block number 459,111.

Nothing can justify keeping block size limit at 1M.

Stop pretending you're smarter than Satoshi, you're not. This reply alone shows me you don't even know the basics of Bitcoin.

You share the same problem with Lauda: Your mouth keep moving but your brain can't catch up. You are forced to make replies but you run out of things to say, so you try too hard and end up going off on a tangent and become white noises.
103  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 11:35:40 PM
Clear evidence of Blockstream controlling the Core code base to prevent block size increase can be seen here,  someone offered to help increasing the blocksize, but the issue was closed immediately by sipa (Pieter Wuille, Blockstream co-founder):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10028

You can see Pieter Wuille closed the issue immediately but then try to justify it with the usual corporate double speak by claiming the issue is up to the community and out of his hand.

This is what we call 'lying'.

If we're talking about increasing block size from 4MB to 8MB, there maybe some room for debate.

But nothing can justify not going form 1MB to 2MB, there is a real backlog and the safety limit is above 4MB.

Blockstream is clearly holding the bitcoin code base hostage.

Here is another pull request for block size increase, closed immediately without any comment:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10014
104  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 10:03:32 AM
Once the HK agreement was signed, cold water was effectively thrown on the above movement and momentum because the community believed that Bitcoin would have real scaling solutions. Unfortunately, it turned out that the HK agreement was a farce, and every deadline in the HK agreement was missed, and all the promises made by Blockstream, and their devs were broken.

Yes it was obvious to everyone that Blockstream didn't take anyone else seriously.

Segwit offers the fees relief every BU supporter is asking for.

It doesn't, stop lying, it was clearly explained by franky1 why it doesn't.
Core assumes attackers are going to spam LN instead of the main chain, are you telling me you actually believe in that?

That alone tells me Core is either flat out lying or has absolutely no clue what they're doing.
Like I said don't treat your users like they are idiots.
105  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 08:57:28 AM
This is factually wrong. It was F2Pool who broke the agreement, effectively making it void. There was no explicit mention of a 2 MB block size increase, rather a HF proposal with a HF proposal. Luke-jr ended up delivering such a proposal, even after the agreement was void. Your bullshit story about previously supporting Core, but now you're dissapointed/don't is bullshit. BTU people are really desperate with these stunts.

No, Adam Back changed his position from "President of Blockstream" to "individual", and after complaints from miners it was changed back again, together with the insults from Greg, at that point the trust was already gone.

Lauda, the thing with screaming is that you can't do that all the time, if you do then everything you say simply become white noises. Have more confidence in yourself, you don't have to scream all the time to get your point across, and when you're wrong, you're wrong, regardless of how loud you scream.


What Satoshi saw or not is completely irrelevant today. He can't predict the future.

Here we go again; this is before ASICs came to be, something that Satoshi failed to predict. Current miners do not control nor decide what Bitcoin is.

That is the problem with Core, they all think they are smarter than Satoshi, but none of them actually are. They talk big and play the act, but their decisions kept running Bitcoin into the ground, then instead of fixing it they act like they're proud of it.

Random passengers with the IQ of a baboon want to be the ones deciding how the plane's engine is going to be built. Roll Eyes The limits are technological.

As oppose to what? Random bitches screaming at everyone online thinking she's smarter than Satoshi?
Fact remains Core devs supported block sized increase, but went against if after they joined Blockstream.

Here it is, you reveal your true colors; either you're: 1) Completely uneducated and ignorant; 2) Paid shill by Ver company (or other).

You're stuck in some kind of us-against-them mentality, not thinking about the users at all, if you have, you'd see that I am just another digital currency user, disappointed in Core wasting the potential Bitcoin has.

It's ok Lauda, we know you're screaming the loudest here because you're the most insecure, and you haven't been loved for a really long time, so I forgive you.  Wink
106  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: March 26, 2017, 05:00:57 AM
Would you please stop obsessing over me?  It's creepy.

I am not your mommy.

You do not get to determine how I spend my time, you do not get to restrict what I say or believe.  I don't force anyone to do anything. You will you make me cow down and obey you through threatening me by lying to the public to try to raise a mob of idiots against me, and even if you do manage to get me killed you will not stop bitcoin, you will not convert it to the centralized coin you seem to so desperately want.

So give it a break.





Dear Greg (and other Core developers),

Your response is deeply worrying me, I've decided to stop being just a spectator and register to make a comment, I hope this will help you and Core in some way.

Let me just begin by stating that I've been a long time Core supporter.

When Core released a new version of their Bitcoin software, I knew there was a certain level of quality control as well as forward thinking, a certain level of trust. It is because of that trust that I've never even considered looking at other alternatives, until now.

As a general fan and user of digital currency, I have no allegiance to Core/BU/XT/Miners or who ever, I don't feel personally attached to any party, I am just interested in Bitcoin's general progress, how Bitcoin will change the world for the better and make people's lives easier. I am also a realist, that means I will only make judgment base on practical matters instead of some arbitrary ideal moral high ground. So, everything I am posting here will be as neutral as you can get from a Bitcoin user.

With that out of the way, I must say, what happened in the past few months have really begun to change my perspective on Core.

For example the current BU fiasco, my understanding is that, a year ago some miners wanted 8MB blocks, some wanted 4MB, there was the usual struggle and bargaining between users/miners/nodes/developers, eventually the miners made a compromise, the "Hong Kong Agreement" was made, in which miners agreed to support Segwit and a 2MB block size increase, Adam Back signed the agreement, only to have you call them "dipshits" and broke the agreement afterwards. Source.

Because of that, now, a year later, the block chain has reached the 1MB block size limit, there is a huge tx backlog and as a result the tx fee has sky rocketed, users are affected and many have moved their money to alt coins. The miners have no choice but to choose the other best options: Bitcoin Unlimited.

So how can anyone honestly blame the miners and BU at this point? Seriously, even if you're paid to do so, deep down you must know this crisis was coming a year ago, and it was Core's responsibility to prepare for it.

Core and some of its fans (some are obviously paid) keep repeating miners and BU are evil because they are splitting the chain, sure you can say that, but seriously, what did you expect them to do. They already compromised and was ignored, now there is a tx backlog, Bitcoin is losing ground to competitions, Core is sitting on their asses holding the code hostage, breaking agreements, making insults, what else are the miners supposed to do. What did Core expect them to do?

I am not even defending miners/BU here, it's all about the block size limit, I am using a pure practical pov: If BU didn't exist, miners would have switched to something else without the 1M limit, simple as that.

Anyone who keep pointing their fingers at miners/BU is just trying to ignore the fact that Core did nothing about the 1MB limit for years.

The thing that really irritates me though, is that the block size limit wasn't even in the white paper, so why would Core hold the code hostage and refuse to increase the limit from 1MB? 1MB is such a small number, how can you even justify not increasing it?

The fact is many Core developers were openly supporting block size increase, but then became strongly opposed to it after they started working for Blockstream, now I don't care for all the conspiracy theories, but can you people just come out and explain why the sudden change of heart?

I find that really puzzling, it's like watching people who used to love pizza, suddenly hate pizza after they work for McDonalds, it just doesn't make sense. Mind you these Core members didn't just simply change their taste, they went from openly supporting raising block size limit to openly hating it with a passion.

Every explanations I've read from Core in the past few months, can basically translate to: "Our Segwit and LN will be soooooo great, who cares what people actually need right now, stop talking to me, I don't care, I already know what you want, if you don't agree with me, you're just stupid."

If Segwit and LN is so great, it'll naturally be adopted when there is a real demand. Core already had the market share and user trust, they already have the golden goose, so why do they have to kill the goose just to get the Segwit golden egg?

Core kept chanting how great Segwit and LN are, it may be true, but their actions tell me they are really insecure about them, otherwise they wouldn't need to artificially create a crisis just to force everyone to use it, I don't know about you, but I believe actions always speak louder than words.

Satoshi saw this tx backlog coming when he was designing Bitcoin, the block size limit isn't even in the white paper, the 1MB limit was only a temporary measure to stop spam in the beginning.

Satoshi's white paper clearly states that consensus should be made base on CPU power, not the number of nodes or IP addresses, not the number of developers, not online poll ratings, not social media, not forum polls, just CPU power. Satoshi made this decision not because he trusted the miners, but because he expected everyone to be selfish and act on their own interests, and of all the pieces in the ecosystem, hash power is the most difficult to fake and come by.

Miners are constantly in an arm race, hash rate never stop climbing, in this constant zero sum survival of the fittest, they get nothing the moment they stop competing, eventually miners become so focused on competing with each other, fine tuning every last knob to gain an hash rate advantage.

Regardless of what anyone else is doing, miners are always at maximum greed under the highest pressure, like a piano wire.

And that is the beauty of the Bitcoin design: All miners worry about is turning electricity into profit, they don't even care who is running the show, they ignore everyone else equally, because no amount of sucking up to users or developers will help their hash rate, but, miners do care about the stability of the ecosystem, because their profit depends on it. Given a choice they'd rather not make any decision that may shake the grounds and risk their profit.

So, in a world full of greed, lies, mistrusts, secret schemes, accusations and back stabs, miner's indiscriminately pure and focused self serving nature makes them the perfect center of balance. When nothing is reliable and nobody can be trusted, the simplest and purest form of greed becomes the constant.

As a digital currency, having consensus base on hash rate is why Bitcoin succeeded while other digital currency failed.

Miners generally don't care about what anyone else is doing, unless some other part of the system did something really short sighted (read: stupid) to tip the balance, and that is EXACTLY what Core did, miners tried to make compromises but were ignored and insulted, now the back log is full, miners are simply reacting in self defense.

Anyone who still blames the miners at this point, simply don't understand Bitcoin and why it succeeded.

Regardless of what you think of BU or Segwit, from a development point of view, Core simply failed, it failed because it ignored user's immediate and practical needs. They sat on their fat asses for a year, making promises after promises on some ideal vision, while there is a huge tx backlog on ground floor.

There are good and responsible Core members, but unfortunately a lot of Core members, especially the loudest ones, seem to be focused on excuses, launching personal attacks, making empty promises, making threats, playing victims, while ignoring practical and immediate user needs.

Greg, you may have a big ego, but you're not Bill Gates, and Bitcoin Core is not Microsoft Windows, block chain technology is young and there are competitions, Bitcoin users are mostly early adopters, they are sharp and they like trying new things, you can't play Bill Gates and use Microsoft tactics and still expect to win.

It is true that you currently have some status and spot light, you have your financial backings, you have your crew and echo chamber, you have your side chain patents, from your pov it really looks like you can do whatever you want, insult people, ignore users, and nobody can do anything about it.

But, in this field anything can happen in a year, so many new and shiny things have come and gone.

Pride goes before a fall, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo all spent billions and failed because they ignored their users. Blockstream only have $75 million, they already made a big mistake, but for some reason they're not turning around, instead acting even cockier than Microsoft.

Judging from how you ignored Satoshi's email and only arrive back to the scene years after Satoshi has gone. I have reason to believe you're the type of person that lacks intuitive foresight.

So I am going to give you an advice: You're on the wrong side of history, but you still have a chance to turn around.

You can't treat your users like they are idiots, they might not find out the truth the first day, they might be fooled by censoring tactics, but eventually there will be a crack, and once people find out you've been lying to them, the trust is gone forever, they'll never trust you again.

Look at the Iraq war, the so called WMD, look at Powell, there were massive misinformation campaign to push people to war, emotions were high, lies mixed with half truths were flying around, SJWs and useful idiots were screaming on top of their lungs, so many people were convinced there were 100% right.

But a decade later, everyone just remember Powell as the guy who lied on TV holding a bottle of white powder.

Where do you think you will be in 10 years, Greg?

Are you going to be remembered as someone who made Bitcoin better, or someone who missed the Bitcoin boat twice?

Bitcoin Core team, this is for you: You had your chance and you failed, no matter who you think you are, you're on the wrong side of history and I don't believe in you people anymore.

And before you try to point fingers and accusing me of helping a side, I am telling you, I don't care who wins, I am tired of your BS and I am going to ditch Bitcoins until things clear.

I am not going to risk my hard earned money on a bunch of short sighted arrogant insecure emotional lying pricks and bitches stuck with messiah complexes who scream a lot and talk big but can't solve simple and practical problems right in front of their noses and screw things up for everyone then turn around and play victims like some entitled pre-adolescent brat asking for a kick in the face.

That's all.

Alex
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!