Core prevails. Classic coin #rekt. Ya'll #rekt.

GG

Core is in no position to make promises on behalf of Honey Badger, much less force him to do anything by a specific date.

A HF done not for technical/engineering reasons, but merely to try and shut up the Classic extortionists, sets a terrible precedent.

If Core is agreeing to throw Gavin a bone just to stop his dogs' barking, the stalemate is broken and all hell will be unleashed on the markets.

I hope Core and Blockstream will on principle refuse to compromise under duress from the threat of Gavincoin's consensus destroying attack.

If they do not, the cold war balance of MAD is over and the Great Schism could get very hot very fast.

And we already have consensus...it's called The Holy Blockchain.

told ya fuckers

https://twitter.com/cnLedger

blunderer says weird things

You know what I like best about the smallblockers? How remarkably well they succeed to contain huge cognitive dissonance without blowing apart.

For them it's all about 'preserving the original vision', and never to rewrite the initial social contract, otherwise: chaos, loss of integrity, the banks win.

But then, they somehow also have to deal with the fact that in the white paper, Moses Satoshi mentions the terms "Electronic Cash" twice, "payment" (in a non-technical sense) 6 times, but the term "artificial scarcity driven clearance network" exactly zero times.

I guess it's not so much about preserving the original social contract after all, and more about locking in those parameters, that at some point were introduced rather arbitrarily, that define the social contract they personally like best. Supreme court ideological battles, anyone?

Yes I said "simply."

You seem confused so I'll draw you a picture.

If Gavincoin forces a situation where catastrophic consensus failure is unacceptably likely, the socioeconomic majority will simply change the PoW to something other than sha256^2.

It's not hard; the code has already been written.  We may even use the crisis as an opportunity to upgrade to a less centralization prone/friendly algorithm.

But don't take my word for it, read what the CEO of Spondoolies says.

https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0

Sha256 isn't any more important to Bitcoin than an individual worker bee is to Honey Badger.  Their angry buzzing and futile stings simply have no real power.  They can try to make Honey Badger give a shit, but the attempt only results in their own demise.

The Sovereign Citizens of La Serenissima will not allow Gavinista bankster shitlords like R3's Mike Hearn and Coinbase's Brian Armstrong to trade off their critical consensus (as preserved in the Holy Blockchain) for the sake of high time preferences.

Any impatient/impertinent miner that joins in such a hostile effort may go straight to hell, and take their suddenly-obsolete sha256 ASICs with them as a handy doorstop/paperweight/boat anchor/souvenir.

Mods of Reddit, what's the most fucked up post you had to remove?

I bet you'll never guess.

literally...... that's just, like, your opinion, man. i don't think Core has said anything of the sort. maybe you can point to some such arguments from Core devs.


because weak blocks/IBLT's are estimated by Core to reduce bandwidth needs for nodes by 90%. that is 90% of the whole damn problem that we're talking about = safer to raise the limit.

i don't see any evidence that anything but a small minority is making noise about this.


you could say Classic devs are at the root of the contention. it just means disagreement. the easy answer is that no consensus on change = no change. that's how the protocol works.


why? blocks aren't actually full on average, nor fees prohibitive. your opinion that "bitcoin is hitting the wall" isn't really founded in fact. the burden lies on you to explain how that is so.


nah, not more legitimate just saying that the burden of proof for why we need to make a change, falls on the person claiming we need to make that change.


yeah i dont think anyone gives a shit about what we say here. but here we are 

FUD and lies? i disagree, but opinions are like assholes. we all got em. XT and Classic proponents have raised some points, and Core and much of the community vehemently disagrees. = contention.

the difference is you are arguing to change the consensus rules, so the burden is on you to provide evidence for why. i was merely quipping that i haven't seen evidence that this supposedly urgent problem is urgent, nor a problem.

blocks aren't actually full on average, nor fees prohibitive. so it seems to me that we could integrate an optimal fee mechanism into the client before the network actually clogs up (if it is going to).

ah okay. so it's simply 1MB vs. 2MB. if Core joins the party, and everyone agrees to wait for miner consensus before forking, it wouldn't be contentious. that's fine with me.

but why should Core do that? just to make the "must-fork-now" camp happy? the basis for the disagreement is technical.

well that's anecdotal and dependent on how you define nerds. not very reliable

anyway, what happened? nothing. an unconfirmed transaction with insufficient fees went unconfirmed. and no one lost anything (unless you accept zero confirmations as a valid payment, which no one should be doing)

perhaps a solution is to integrate an optimal fee mechanism into the client.

hehe well, seems to be chugging along just fine to me. i dunno who's getting their transactions constantly stuck but i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.

that's a big if, for now. so...contention.

gavin withdrew the BIP101 pull request from the Core BIPs on github, but isn't XT still implementing BIP101, which is 8MB block size limit to start? that means miners can produce blocks as large as 8MB.

8MB blocks are not compatible with Classic's 2MB block size limit.

further, since Unlimited has no hard-coded block-size limit, it views all blocks as valid (whether max 1MB, 2MB or 8MB). that means that it accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks. but Classic and Core won't accept blocks above 2MB, meaning if any such blocks exist, compatibility with both XT and Unlimited is broken.

none of these are compatible with a 1MB limit, of course.

this represents a possibility for at least three separate forks. A 1MB fork, which rejects Classic and XT blocks above 1MB. A 2MB fork, which rejects XT blocks above 2MB. And an 8MB fork, which accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks.

are we blowing somthing up?

i'm in!

My shorts, hopefully.

There is no "I" in "consensus", but there is an "us".

that fork was an emergency update, where there was no controversy over the implementation.

here, we have multiple competing development teams that disagree (including actively lobbying miners against one another), and the stated threat of moving forward with or without miner (and surely node) consensus. that can easily mean chain forking into multiple ledgers ...forever.

if the network can't reach consensus on the rules to enforce, the only means to establish a single (trustless, decentralized) ledger are broken. that will erode a lot of trust in bitcoin, possibly beyond repair.

If the price drops to 0.0012 and the bitcoin price does not rise, it means Ethereum is a dead system.