|
This was already discussed at least once before. Use the search function & look around the section. The forum is not on sale, and will likely not be in the near future. This thread is fairy pointless attempt to farm up your post count. Time to lock this and move on.
|
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Duplicate.
|
|
|
|
no, you, carlton, gmaxwell are not advocating it.. so you pretend its not an option.
No. The 3 people that you've listed have no connection to each other whatsoever. but you forget the roundtables, the miners, the merchants and many users not in your fanclub that are wanting it..
Pretty much everyone reasonable, and non delusional is currently supporting Core. mayb i was strong by saying you were asleep. more like u got your fingers in your ears pretending you did not say something or know something u previously said and known
Not an argument, but rather ad hominem. even the roadmap said that segwit would release this summer and the mainblock capacity activated by summer 2017.. you had many discussions about that since 2015 (when it finally got to a general agreement by all those involved at the many roundtables.)
Irrelevant. if your now talking about some doomsday split, then your straw-manning something merchants and miners and users are not advocating since late 2015
That's because someone like you, who's knowledge is obviously limited, does not understand the deployment of new software on large scale businesses. You'd probably be fine with a 28d grace period. |
|
|
|
core releasing a 2mb+segwit CONSENSUS version =
-snip-
This is another straw-man attempt again. Nobody was even arguing for this, nor does this refute any of the points that I've made. wake up lauda stop with the twisted mindset to scare people
You're the one who's in deep sleep around |
|
|
|
Other than a mindless fearr of a hard fork, give me 1 solid reason based on logic against a block size increase.
1) Security risk of a DOS due to quadratic validation problem. 2) No hard fork experience. 3) High risk of damaging merchants and businesses that do not manage to update in time (if the activation parameters are improper such as with Bitcoin Classic). 4) Higher storage cost. 5) Higher bandwidth cost.
Even if we disregard the 4 latter, the primary issue is still the security risk. |
|
|
|
lol.. you have no clue... time you done your own bench tests. oh heres a hint, when u go on IRC to be spoonfed from ur pals.. ask them to link you real info.. i know u love asking people to link info.. and because its coming from your friends you wont argue and put your fingers in your ear when you get it
You haven't made an argument here. Stop trolling. |
|
|
|
BU is user requested scaling.. its not like it actually will contain 16mb of data tomorrow.. miners have their own preferences and will grow incrementally.
EG bitcoin is only 1mb.. even in 2016 you yourself bleeted that blocks were generally not yet at 1mb and there was still room for growth
EG bitcoin is only 1mb.. even in 2013 you yourself know blocks were only 500k full
meaning even with 1mb rule blocks were not 1mb..
You and people like you are really gullible. Nobody is talking about "16 MB real-world" data tomorrow. I'm talking about malicious data that could infinitely DOS the network. The 1 MB block size limit prevents this, a 16 MB block size limit does not. |
|
|
|
Because I am invested in Bitcoin none of my arguments are therefore valid? This is a strange thing to say to me, if anything being invested in Bitcoin aligns my incentives to do what is best for Bitcoin.
Invested in altcoins -> preaching in favor of altcoins due to bias. Maybe instead of constantly attacking with me ad hominem you should argue rationally with me and not resort to such manipulative tactics.
If I call you an idiot somewhere in between, that isn't ad hominem as I'm not trying to undermine your argument by doing so. In other words, there have been no ad hominem attacks. So according to you, your counter argument to what I have said here is that Ethereum is a mutable shit coin and that all that matters is "Distance-to-Vitalik". If that is your complete argument we can leave it at that, people reading this can decide for themselves what they think is more correct.
Correct, because what you wrote is such a big piece of crap that doesn't even need argumentation. People would just end up wasting their time reading it, like I did. You are saying that I must be either a troll, shill or an idiot. And you are claiming that this is not ad hominem or character assassination and that you are being completely objective and rational by saying this.
That is correct. I have not undermined any arguments, nor specified a singular person to be in any of those groups. My assessment may be flawed if I've missed some potential groups (which I'm sure I have).
Fun how this drifts away from the original topic and forking, because your position is inherently wrong due to a number of factors that are not being considered. BU assumes everything is going to be a fairy tale and everyone is going to create 16 MB worth of nice, and sigop friendly transactions.  |
|
|
|
|
If you plan on spamming BTCT in order to support your family you're going to get banned pretty quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial introductory thread.
|
|
|
|
Show us the posts that were deleted and I'm sure you will be told why they were.
It is highly likely that their posts were in the Indonesian section, ergo it may be hard for us to asses it. From what I can see, no threads of their were trashed either. If a topic is deleted with a reply of yours in it then you do not receive a notification. If your post specifically is deleted, you would receive the PM I previously mentioned.
The same applies when a thread is moved to the trash can (there's a difference between removing a thread and trashing it). People won't be notified in either case. I also think there are deleting happenings that does not make sense.
No, it's actually the opposite. There aren't enough deletions. |
|
|
|
My impression from lurking in IRC and the Slack over the past few months is that there's no consensus around a hard fork. I also think there was somewhat of a mutual understanding among most people involved in the July SF dev/miner meeting....that in the wake of Ethereum's failed hard fork, that a hard fork is more dangerous than most had expected. It's on the back burner. Way back. I don't think the timing of the deadline for that proposal, and the SF meeting were coincidental.
I thought that someone may associate my post with that July/August deadline (or whatever exact the deadline of a meeting was supposed to be. However, that's not what I meant and not what I'm concerned about. AFAIK luke-jr said that they would still write and submit both a proposal and the code. I'm interested in the specifics of the proposal (not the deadline/activation mechanism) as I doubt it will be solely a block size increase (which would make that particular HF very inefficient; there are desirable changes that could be done along with it). |
|
|
|
Interesting. Try opening an issue on the github page. Also, have you tried using the new ARM builds?
hmm don't know how to do that on github page...but the next step for me is to look for a precompiled working binary. Navigate to the Bitcoin Core Github page and then press the button "New Issue":  You obviously need to have an account though. |
|
|
|
the problem is that core fanboys dont want a true consensual fork.. they have done all they can to give core power and control. to veto out any plan that involves a consensual fork..
This doesn't make sense at all. A HF proposed by Core would still make them retain "power and control" that you're preaching about . Note: I'm not saying I agree with what you're saying, just that it doesn't make sense). i just wish the core fanboys dont REKT a core team release of 2mb
As soon as the security issues of that are mitigated, then I don't see a (big) problem with it. lets watch who REKTs people like luke JR who will release a core code implementation of 2mb buffer.
I'm actually quite curious and waiting for them to release a proposal and implementation. It's taking too long in any case. |
|
|
|
I was specifically responding to you saying that Bitcoin has the most "advanced and developed protocol".
Thank you for explaining that. What you've described is the 'cherry picking fallacy'. I find it revealing you are not invested in Bitcoin, people can make their own judgement in that regard. For the record I have a bigger share in Bitcoin compared to any other altcoin, including Dash.
That's why you're heavily biased. Just the fact that you aren't willing to admit this to yourself, makes most of your arguments plummet into water. I understand now that most of what you are doing is just attacking my character at this point, it should be obvious to everyone here that I have remained civil, unlike yourself I do not engage in that type of ad hominen and other type of fallacious argumentation since it is not productive towards rational discussion.
Not an argument. Stop crying out to "ad hominem" to defend flawed positioning and argumentation. You've wrote an useless wall of text that doesn't matter at all. We all know that ETH's promise that "Code is law" was a pure lie. The primary thing that matters is the DTV factor, i.e. "Distance-to-Vitalik". Not an argument. This is very well an argument as it describes the lies that the shitcoin was built upon, which later turned into a mutable chain. To be clear you claimed to know as a fact that Monero would be made illegal if there was greater adoption, you further went on to claim that you had insider knowledge that this was true, first of all your insider knowledge can not be considered as a fact by other people because it can not be publicly verified.
I did claim it was going to be illegal. I didn't specify where. I didn't make any claims about insider knowledge, that's what you concluded out of my statement. "It's confidential" may mean a lot of things.
You also say that splitting the Bitcoin blockchain should be considered a positive thing? That is absurd. I do not know if you are serious or you are trolling.
Objectively speaking, I can only put someone like that in one (or more) of the following groups: 1) Trolling. 2) Paid shill. 3) Idiot. Hint: This isn't ad hominem, nor character assassination. This is an objective evaluating of a viewpoint which is not rational. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Basically it's total financial independence, and it's very safe in my opinion.
-snip-
Tell me how do you feel about this?
You know, this is like asking meat lovers what they think about meat.  I fully understand that you may or may not find a few people with differentiating view points here, which may not fully support this. However, most people are going to praise financial independence, because that's one of the reasons that they're here for. I'm not really interested in the price of Bitcoin in USD (people complain when it's volatile, and they also complain when it's stable). What I'm interested, and what I cherish is the freedom. I can do anything with my money, whatever I want and whenever I want it (besides the times where your Core database goes corrupt and you have to reindex for 24 hours  ).
Hint: Next time use a self moderated thread. |
|
|
|
Alright, but at least is there any solution where to post it.
No. You're not supposed to post it anywhere until there is a dedicated section for that particular language. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Look at those dates (you are either a blind fool or just a troll): August 25, 2014. I have been involved in a lot of altcoins in the past, but have exited the altcoin space during 2014-2015. Now, this isn't even part of the topic here and you have clearly failed. I suggest that you either try to make reasonable arguments relevant to the topic or keep quiet.
Hint: The topic is "Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already.". |
|
|
|
if bitcoin is still around and all, will the mining (calculation of the blockchain) be so difficult where one block could get as large as 100GB in file size?
The Bitcoin difficulty has not correlation with the block size. What is put in place where bitcoin will not time out because the transactions are just to difficult to process and store?
The block size limit, which is currently 1 MB. The block size limit is a consensus rule and does not change due to mining difficulty. |
|
|
|
Not a strawman, you where not that specific in your statement, furthermore such a hand waving statement that most "shitcoins" have lots of security exploits does not carry much weight.
It's a pure strawman. Don't blame me for your inadequate research into the development of those altcoins. None of them comes close to Bitcoin in terms of security (both code and network security). Bitcoin market share is now at 79% a historic low.
This is an obvious case of you spreading false information again. The historic low was reached on March 13, 2016 with 74.41% dominance. Furthermore, it has also hovered around a lower threshold back in late 2014 (specifically 18th of December). If you want to preach the doomsday bullshit, at least do proper research. It is not a fact, the word shady is highly subjective, and even though I do agree with you in using that term, it still stands that whether this should effect the viability of the currency today is again an opinion, and not a fact.
You're defending a premined shitcoin since you're now invested in it (your words; this makes you highly biased; note: I'm not invested in Bitcoin). That makes you pretty much any average pump & dump altcoin fanatic. -snip-
You've wrote an useless wall of text that doesn't matter at all. We all know that ETH's promise that "Code is law" was a pure lie. The primary thing that matters is the DTV factor, i.e. "Distance-to-Vitalik". Again not a straw man, you can clearly see that I am directly responding to what you have said, furthermore it is impossible for this statement to even be a straw man argument because I am not even implying or inferring your position here whatsoever.
Stop wasting everyone's time "no you're wrong, and I'm right" bullshit. You don't even understand fallacies, yet you call upon them constantly against other people. Furthermore you claim to have knowledge that Monero is going to be banned in all jurisdictions.
"All jurisdictions"? I have not made this claim. lauda is just a young guy (under 30) he has no real world experience, no experience of coding.
he is however very chummy with many monero holders, and i think he is just baiting you.
No, stop being a blind fool. I don't have any ties to Monero. There's no reason to use it besides for illicit purposes. Not that this is the topic here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
